Letters to the Editor: Can Ultra-Processed Foods Be Both Protective and Problematic?
Ingredient fears, symptom relief, and recovery: two letters on what gets lost when nuance disappears from food conversations.
In December I wrote a piece on ultra-processed foods—specifically whether “addiction” to these foods is evidence-based, their relationship with chronic disease, issues with nutrition misinformation, what it means to hold large food corporations accountable, how anti-fatness is pervasive in UPF conversations, and the impact of food stigma and shame.
I received a couple of comments that I felt called to reply to with a more complete set of thoughts (versus a quick “thank you for sharing your insights!” in the post thread).
So, today is that day. I’ll address two of them here, and if there are more that come out of this one, we can explore those down the road.
You can read the original article right here.
Letter to the editor #1: Recovery, neurodivergence, and processed foods…
Thanks for this post. I’d like to hear more about how you said that “[UPFs] also represent safety and stability for people with eating disorders, neurodivergence, disabilities, illness, and so much more.” I’m recovering from an ED and rely heavily on processed because I can’t seem to muster the energy to cook. Is this an example of what you were talking about?
Yes—exactly that. And I’m really glad you named it, because I didn’t have the opportunity to expand on this in much detail in the original post.
For the sake of this reply, I’ll focus just on your mention of ED recovery, but want to note that most of what follows could be applied to anyone—whether or not they’ve had/have an eating disorder, ADHD, autoimmune disease, chronic pain, etc.
When we zoom out and consider what processed foods offer, some of the benefits include:
reliable textures
consistent tastes
low- or no-prep options
snacks that can be eaten on the go
shelf stability
affordability
nutrient fortification
variety without immense effort
medically necessary formulas
cultural continuity
pleasure
reduced cognitive load
fewer barriers to decision-making
Having something you can reliably eat matters far more than what that food is.
When energy, executive functioning, mood, or physical capacity are limited, processed foods provide consistency, predictability, and enough nourishment to keep us moving through life.
Because the unpopular truth is this: Regular, adequate intake is one of the strongest predictors of recovery progress.
It’s not novelty, ‘cooking from scratch,’ or nutritional ‘optimization.’ It’s about enough food, eaten consistently. If processed foods are what make that possible (the case for a majority of humans, recovery or not), they are doing important clinical work.
So, safety in eating might look like:
Foods that require little or no prep, especially when fatigue or indecision is loud
Foods that taste the same every time when anxiety wants certainty
Foods that don’t demand planning, prep, or cleanup—especially when your nervous system is already working overtime
Ultra-processed foods often meet those needs by design. They’re satisfying, accessible, and fast. For many of us—including people who are neurodivergent, disabled, chronically ill, healing from an ED, or just trying to make it through the messiness of the world—that reliability is not trivial whatsoever. I see it as deeply protective and self-compassionate.
Diet culture likes to frame these foods as “not trying hard enough,” but science says the opposite: using tools that help you eat is skillful, adaptive, and wise.
You’re not doing recovery (or life) wrong because you’re not cooking. Hard stop.
Letter to the editor #2: UPFs and rates of chronic illness, skeptical of additives, and foods correlated with disease…
(note: edited slightly for clarity)
Thank you for posting this for everyone. It will be interesting to see where this lawsuit ends up - but I agree, I don't think food manufacturers can be compared with the tobacco companies who absolutely had research about the addictive nature of their product and kept it from consumers.
I am for personal choices, informed choices. So if there is information that has to do with health, I want to know it. I didn't agree with regulations in New York that limited the size of soda people bought or anything of that nature. But some of these additives have not been around long enough for us to know the health consequences, and some things have been banned around the world that are here in the U.S. I don't know where you stand on that.
Correlation, not causation, but with the proliferation of pre-packaged foods, convenience foods, and fast food since the 1950s there has been a rise in chronic illness. Auto-immune conditions have been on the rise or entered parts of the world where they were not seen before and that takes into account increased ability to diagnose and access to healthcare. Do I think food causes these things alone, no I don't. But, for some people food is a factor in their health where other factors are also a cause or trigger.
There is a study in the UK right now showing improved results in people with Crohn's who remove foods with emulsifiers like carrageenan, cellulose, and few others. Those things don't cause the Crohn's, but they can be triggers for some people with it. Anecdotally, I removed those things years ago and have been in remission without medication since (25 years).
It's so case by case though, and that's why I don't think we should be telling everyone else how to eat. Food security and whether or not UPFs are healthy are two separate issues. People should have access to fresh foods for enjoyment and variety as well as nutrition. Again, UPF is too much of a catchall, as the first commenter said, and many people rely on that kind of nutrient supplementation to maintain their health.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share all of this—you’re naming real concerns, and we have so much common ground. I also deeply appreciate both the nuance and your willingness to share your lived experience with Crohn’s. It makes sense to experiment when pain is loud and options are few. Individual trigger foods are absolutely real for some conditions, and honoring what your body needs in symptom management is never up for debate. I also want to name that many people come to these considerations not from ideology, but from fear—fear of pain, fear of decline, fear of missing something important. And I get that, because on a personal note, I navigated it for a long time (and sometimes still do when conditions flare up).
I recognize there wasn’t a single question here, but your comment held so many reflections that it invited a slower response.
So, where I want to slow things down next is how those individual experiences often get taken up once they move into public narratives about food, health, and responsibility. This is particularly true when we start questioning the safety of specific ingredients, additives, or nutrients because it’s