Most people believe they understand what makes a food healthy. If it sounds natural, it must be good. If it sounds processed, it must be harmful. This simple idea has shaped headlines, social media posts, and even public health conversations. However, the science behind food processing is far more complex, and much of what the public hears leaves out the facts that matter most for real health outcomes.
Food processing is often blamed for modern health problems. Popular frameworks, such as the NOVA classification system, label many everyday foods as harmful simply because they are manufactured in factories or contain additives. However, processing alone cannot determine whether a food supports health or undermines it. The actual drivers of health are the nutrients foods provide, how often they are eaten, and the overall balance of the diet.
Take bread as an example. NOVA categorizes most packaged breads as ultra-processed. It implies that they are harmful, even though bread contributes essential nutrients such as fibre, iron, folate, and calcium to many national diets. A slice of wholemeal bread remains a valuable source of energy and micronutrients regardless of where it was baked or whether the flour contains a raising agent. By focusing solely on the idea of processing, these important contributions are overlooked.
Breakfast cereals offer another clear example. Under NOVA, many cereals are labeled as ultra-processed, even when they are rich in whole grains and fortified with vitamins and minerals that support public health. Research across several countries indicates that individuals who regularly consume breakfast cereals tend to achieve a better total daily nutrient intake, not a worse one. Again, the nutritional profile matters far more than the presence of processing steps.
These examples highlight a simple truth. Processing is a tool. It can make food safer, extend shelf life, preserve nutrients, reduce saturated fat, or improve affordability. It can also be used to create foods that are high in sugar or salt, but this is not an automatic outcome of processing itself. What matters is the final nutritional value of the food, not the method used to produce it.
The problem with many popular narratives is that they collapse all types of processing into a single negative idea. They overlook the important nuance that not all processing is the same and that many nutritious foods appear unhealthy under systems that prioritize process over content. It leads to public confusion and distracts from proven health priorities such as improving fibre intake and reducing excessive calories, saturated fat, and added sugars.
For readers interested in understanding food processing through scientific evidence rather than fear or oversimplification, In Defence of Bread by Mike Gibney offers a clear and grounded explanation. It challenges the myths, exposes the inconsistencies, and brings the focus back to what truly matters for health.
Get your copies now : https://www.amazon.com/dp/1969868961/
