We live in a toxic food environment, and Big Food has extremely clever marketers and food scientists. That all of us eat a lot of Big Food’s produce means those people are very good at their jobs. It does not mean we have failed if we eat what the industry makes.
In the UK, about 50 percent of the average adult’s diet and 65 percent of a child’s is ultra-processed.
As Chris van Tulleken wrote in his latest book — Ultra-Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food and Why Can’t We Stop? — a lot of what we eat includes newly invented substances that humans have not eaten before and we know very little about how they interact with us or each other.
Illustration: Mountain People
Such foods are likely to be made by companies such as Unilever, PepsiCo or Nestle. The UK food industry spends ￡1.14 billion (US$1.42 billion) a year on advertising and, as ex-Big Food marketer Dan Parker has said, it uses manipulative tactics such as associating foods such as chocolate with positive things like relaxation (KitKats, Maltesers) or emotional openness (Cadbury’s “Give A Doubt”), while normalizing over-consumption with ads showing one — always small — person eating a family-size bar (think Audrey Hepburn in the Galaxy advert).
Criticizing ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is not necessarily the same as shaming those who eat them, but we do shame and blame people who eat UPFs, including, often, ourselves, and that should stop.
We also have a nasty habit of demonizing foods that are important to specific cultures, such as fried chicken.
Shame is never motivating and what we eat is not a cipher for morality. Although almost all of us eat a lot of UPFs, we tend to think of it as a problem that mainly affects people who live in poverty. It is absolutely not constructive to vilify the diets of people already living in highly stressful situations, but it is also a mistake to assume this does not affect “us,” whatever your socioeconomic position might be.
Arranging society so people do not feel they have enough time or money to make themselves a meal is a dystopian nightmare that UPFs hide in plain sight. Definitions vary, but they mainly come in a packet and are made with preservatives, stabilizers, emulsifiers and colors or flavor enhancers. They include everyday items such as shop-bought hummus, stuffed pasta, hot sauce, curry paste, ready meals, some jams, most peanut butters, most breads, vegan meat alternatives, almost all cereals, most cured meats, burgers and sausages, soft drinks, sweetened or low-fat yoghurts, many “free from” products, dairy replacements, and almost all the ice-creams, desserts and cookies in the supermarket. If your trolley does not contain a fair chunk of that list, then there are few possibilities: You have superhuman levels of willpower; you are very wealthy and/or have your own from-scratch cook; you are lying.
Many UPFs are cheap, but those that are not often come branded with a health halo, as with plant-based meat alternatives, cereal bars or protein powders. In reality, consumption of UPFs of all types is associated with an increased risk of all sorts of health issues, including cancers and weight gain.
UPFs are convenient and are carefully marketed as a way to make our busy-busy lives easier. Those who criticize UPFs are therefore often seen as having a go at people who already feel harried by the way we have arranged society, but the problem is not with us. The problem is structural.
Arranging society so that people do not feel that they have enough time or money to make themselves a meal is a dystopian nightmare. Selling us cheap food that might harm us, but is framed as being helpful or healthy, is a dystopian nightmare. And, as Henry Dimbleby said in his new book, Ravenous, so is urban planning, which means more than 3 million people cannot access shops that sell fresh produce.
Our hysterical fear of fatness has led us to individualize responsibility for what we eat, while also failing to take account of the highly nuanced relationship between body size and health. Even though 59 types of obesity have been identified, the UK’s (noticeably unsuccessful) approach to weight management is still variations on the theme of eat less, exercise more, plus the new and wildly hyped semaglutide weight-loss drugs, Ozempic and Wegovy (originally created to treat diabetes), about which media from The Economist to New York Magazine have gushed (often containing a throwaway line about gastric side effects, and the associated risk of pancreatitis and possibly cancer).
These are trying to solve the wrong problem: We should not be living in a food environment in which a sizeable number of people need (or want) to be drugged to cope with it.
The popularity of UPFs is symptomatic of something much bigger, and not just that Big Food is great at marketing and making irresistible, energy-dense foods. It is about the primacy of work, long hours, low pay, hustle culture, structural inequalities, poverty and precarity. For most of us, it is almost impossible to make so-called “good” food choices.
This is particularly the case if you are stressed, exhausted or laboring under any kind of scarcity or insecurity, all of which have been shown in many studies to affect not just our food choices, but also how our bodies metabolize food.
And who is not feeling the pressure of living in perma-crisis Britain, to some extent?
Solving the problem is not about manufacturers changing formulations (although that might help). It is much harder than that. Our problems with food are just symptoms of other social problems, which is why it is ridiculous to pretend that any of us, individually, can solve them.
If there is a moral question to be answered, it is by those who make UPFs, not those who eat them.
Every time we make an individual body — ours, or someone else’s — the site for a conversation about “good” and “bad” food choices, weight or shape, we look at the problem upside down. We make our food choices into a moral maze instead of saying: “It is food that is broken and needs to change. Not us.”
Rebecca Seal is a freelance writer and editor.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS