Noah Praamsma, a registered dietitian with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, has a message that might surprise many people listening to decades of nutritional advice: not all processed foods are created equal, and some of the healthiest options on grocery shelves happen to be ultra-processed.
A new report from Healthy Eating Research released this year makes a science-backed case for rethinking how we classify and regulate ultra-processed foods. The distinction matters urgently, because the federal government is currently developing an official definition for ultra-processed foods that will determine what appears in school lunches, how foods get taxed, and which products face advertising restrictions. Without careful attention to the actual health effects of different foods, policies designed to protect public health could inadvertently penalize genuinely nutritious options.
The evidence is clear: plant-based ultra-processed foods like whole grain breads, breakfast cereals, and meat alternatives tend to have beneficial effects on human health. Meanwhile, animal-based ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks are consistently harmful. Harvard researchers recently found that sugary and artificially sweetened beverages and processed meats increased the risk of heart disease, but that bread and cold cereals actually had protective effects. The same pattern holds for type 2 diabetes: bread, cereal, and plant-based meat alternatives reduce diabetes risk, while processed meat and sugary drinks increase it.
"Processed meat like bacon, hot dogs, and deli meat should absolutely be avoided, but many plant-based foods that are considered ultra-processed, like breads, cereals, and meat alternatives are actually good for your health," Praamsma explained. This nuance is crucial. Telling people to avoid all ultra-processed foods is like telling someone to avoid all fruits and vegetables without distinguishing between an apple and a candy bar.
The 14-member committee behind the Healthy Eating Research report established specific criteria for identifying which ultra-processed foods should be exempted from restrictive policies. Foods qualify if they contain adequate amounts of recommended food groups, stay below nutrient thresholds for added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat, and do not contain non-sugar sweeteners. This science-based approach protects both health and accessibility—plant-based options are often more affordable and shelf-stable than fresh alternatives, making them crucial for food security across income levels.
This guidance arrives as major health organizations are catching up to the science. In August 2025, the American Heart Association acknowledged that "not all UPFs are junk foods or have poor nutritional quality; some UPFs have better nutritional value and can be part of an overall healthy dietary pattern."
The potential impact on school lunches could be significant. If federal policy distinguishes between nourishing plant-based breads and cereals versus harmful processed meats and sugary drinks, children would gain access to more affordable, nutritious options. "We need policies informed by science, not ideology, and that are robust enough to actually promote beneficial food and discourage unhealthy foods," Praamsma said. For millions of students depending on school meals, that distinction could shape their long-term health.