Food scientists have discovered that the current system of labeling foods as simply “processed” or “ultra-processed” is too simplistic and hides important differences. According to Gram Research analysis, when researchers measured processing on a continuous scale instead of using strict categories, they found substantial overlap between ultra-processed and less-processed foods, revealing that many foods labeled ultra-processed have similar processing levels to foods considered healthier. This new measurement approach provides a more accurate way to evaluate how food processing actually affects what we eat.
Scientists have discovered that the way we classify processed foods might be all wrong. Instead of simply labeling foods as “processed” or “unprocessed,” researchers now suggest we should measure how much processing each food has gone through. According to Gram Research analysis, this new approach reveals that many foods labeled as ultra-processed actually have similar processing levels to foods considered healthier. This breakthrough helps us understand which foods truly affect our health and which processing methods matter most for our bodies.
Key Statistics
A 2026 review in Current Research in Food Science found that diets classified as ultra-processed showed wide variation in cumulative processing exposure, with substantial overlap between ultra-processed and non-ultra-processed diets when processing was measured quantitatively rather than categorically.
Research reviewed by Gram shows that item-weighted, energy-weighted, and nutrient-weighted processing descriptors capture graded differences in food processing that are completely obscured by traditional categorical classifications of processed versus unprocessed foods.
According to a 2026 analysis, the new Food Processing Levels framework distinguishes between physical modifications (like grinding) and chemical modifications (like adding preservatives) of foods, revealing that two diets with identical ultra-processed labels can have very different processing profiles.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: How scientists measure and classify food processing, and whether the current system of calling foods “ultra-processed” or “unprocessed” actually tells us what we need to know about health.
- Who participated: This was a review of existing research studies, not a new experiment with people. Scientists analyzed how other studies classified foods and measured processing.
- Key finding: When scientists measured processing as a continuous scale rather than putting foods into strict categories, they found that many ultra-processed foods had similar processing levels to foods considered less processed. This overlap suggests the current classification system misses important details.
- What it means for you: You shouldn’t assume all ultra-processed foods are equally bad or that all unprocessed foods are equally good. The type and amount of processing matters more than the label. However, this doesn’t mean ultra-processed foods are healthy—it means we need better ways to evaluate them.
The Research Details
This research is a comprehensive review that examined how food scientists currently classify and measure food processing. Rather than conducting new experiments, the researchers looked at existing studies and identified problems with how we categorize foods. They introduced a new framework called Food Processing Levels (FPL) that treats processing as something you can measure on a scale, like temperature or weight, rather than as a simple yes-or-no category. This new approach allows scientists to compare foods more precisely by looking at specific physical and chemical changes that happen during processing. The researchers then showed how this new measurement system reveals hidden similarities and differences between foods that the old categorical system missed.
The current system of labeling foods as ultra-processed or unprocessed is like sorting all cars into just two categories: “old” and “new.” This doesn’t tell you much about how well they actually run. By creating a more detailed measurement system, scientists can better understand which specific processing methods affect our health and which don’t. This helps researchers design better studies and helps doctors give more accurate nutrition advice.
This is a review article that synthesizes existing research rather than presenting new experimental data. The strength of this work lies in identifying a real problem with how we currently measure food processing. The authors make a logical case for why a continuous measurement system works better than categorical labels. However, because this is a framework paper rather than a study testing health outcomes, it doesn’t provide direct evidence that this new system will improve health predictions. Future studies using this new framework will be needed to prove its value.
What the Results Show
The researchers discovered that when they measured food processing on a continuous scale instead of using strict categories, the boundaries between ultra-processed and less-processed foods became blurry. Many foods labeled as ultra-processed had similar total processing exposure to foods considered less processed. This overlap suggests that the current categorical system oversimplifies how processing actually works. The new framework, called Processed Food Intake (PFI) descriptors, can measure processing in three different ways: by counting items, by measuring energy content, or by tracking nutrients. Each method reveals different patterns that the old categorical system completely missed. For example, two diets might both be labeled ultra-processed, but one might involve more chemical changes while the other involves more physical changes. These differences could matter for health but were invisible under the old system.
The research shows that processing isn’t one-size-fits-all. Some processing methods (like pasteurization to kill harmful bacteria) might be beneficial, while others (like adding excessive salt or sugar) might be harmful. The new framework allows scientists to distinguish between these different types of processing. The researchers also found that diets matched for nutritional quality—meaning they have similar amounts of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients—can still differ significantly in their processing history. This suggests that processing itself, beyond just the nutrients it removes or adds, might independently affect health.
Previous research often relied on the NOVA classification system, which divides foods into four categories based on processing level. While this system was useful for starting conversations about processed foods, it treats all ultra-processed foods as equally problematic and all unprocessed foods as equally beneficial. This new research builds on that foundation by acknowledging that the NOVA system, while helpful, doesn’t capture the full picture. The continuous measurement approach is more sophisticated and allows for more precise comparisons between studies, which has been difficult because different studies sometimes classified the same foods differently.
This is a framework paper, not a study that directly tests whether the new measurement system actually predicts health outcomes better than the old system. The researchers didn’t conduct experiments with people to prove that this new approach leads to better health advice. Additionally, the paper doesn’t provide specific guidance on which types of processing are most important for health—it just shows that we need better tools to measure processing. Future research will need to use this new framework to actually test whether it improves our understanding of how food processing affects health.
The Bottom Line
Don’t assume all ultra-processed foods are equally unhealthy or that all unprocessed foods are equally healthy. Instead, focus on the specific ingredients and types of processing. Look for foods with minimal added sugars, sodium, and artificial ingredients, regardless of their processing category. This recommendation has moderate confidence because while the framework is logical, direct health evidence using this new system is still emerging.
Anyone trying to make healthier food choices should care about this research, especially people managing chronic diseases like diabetes or heart disease. Nutrition professionals and food scientists should particularly pay attention because this framework could improve how they design studies and give advice. People who feel confused by conflicting nutrition advice about processed foods will benefit from understanding that the current classification system has real limitations.
This research doesn’t directly predict how quickly you’ll see health benefits from changing your diet. That depends on which specific foods you change and your individual health status. However, understanding this framework might help you make better food choices immediately by focusing on the quality of ingredients rather than just the processing label.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is all ultra-processed food bad for you?
Not necessarily equally bad. Research shows that ultra-processed foods vary widely in how much they’re actually processed. Some processing (like pasteurization) can be beneficial, while others (like adding excess sugar) may be harmful. The type of processing matters as much as the amount.
How should I know if a food is too processed?
Instead of relying on labels alone, check the ingredient list for added sugars, sodium, and artificial ingredients. Count how many processing steps were used. Foods with simple, recognizable ingredients and minimal chemical additions are generally better choices regardless of processing category.
Does processing remove all the nutrients from food?
Not always. Some processing can remove nutrients, but some processing methods preserve food safely without major nutrient loss. The key is understanding what specific processing was done. Frozen vegetables, for example, are processed but retain most nutrients.
Why do scientists need a new way to measure food processing?
The current system puts all ultra-processed foods in one category, making it impossible to distinguish between different types of processing and their different health effects. A continuous measurement system allows scientists to compare foods more precisely and design better nutrition studies.
Will this new system change nutrition recommendations?
Eventually, yes. Once scientists use this new framework to study actual health outcomes, recommendations may become more specific about which processing methods matter most. For now, focus on ingredient quality and recognizable components rather than just the processed label.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track the number of ingredient items in your meals and the types of processing methods used (physical like grinding, or chemical like adding preservatives). Rate each meal on a scale of 1-10 for processing intensity to see patterns over time.
- When choosing between two similar foods, use the app to compare their ingredient lists and processing methods rather than just checking if they’re labeled ultra-processed. Set a goal to gradually increase meals where you can identify and count the specific processing steps.
- Weekly, review your processing intensity scores alongside how you felt physically (energy levels, digestion, hunger). Over months, look for patterns between processing levels and your health markers to understand your personal response to different types of processing.
This research presents a new framework for measuring food processing but does not directly test health outcomes. While the framework is scientifically sound, individual health responses to different types of processing vary. Consult with a registered dietitian or healthcare provider before making significant dietary changes, especially if you have existing health conditions, take medications, or follow a medically prescribed diet. This article is for educational purposes and should not replace professional medical or nutritional advice.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.