Time Magazine Suggests Ultra-Processed Foods Really Aren't That Bad, And The Comments Are Hilarious

In a piece titled, "What If Ultra-Processed Foods Aren't As Bad As You Think," writer Jaime Ducharme attempted to make a case that UPFs are overly demonized based on the experience of a dietician named Jessica Wilson.

Reactions to the article were overwhelmingly negative as many people pointed out that research overwhelmingly and unquestionably proves that the frequent consumption of UPFs leads to worse health outcomes in the vast majority of people.

In response to the backlash, it appears that the title has now been changed to "Why One Dietitian is Speaking Up for “Ultra-Processed” Foods." I'm not sure how that's any better.

While the piece acknowledges some risks associated with UPFs, it ultimately diminishes their impact by emphasizing factors like lifestyle and overall diet quality. As many people across social media pointed out, this approach distracts from the real issue: the overwhelming presence of unhealthy, ultra-processed options in our food supply, driven by powerful industry interests.

Critically, Time leans on studies that show only modest increases in mortality from high UPF consumption, but this interpretation overlooks the broader context of health risks associated with these foods. Ultra-processed foods are packed with additives, sugars, and unhealthy fats, contributing to various chronic diseases, from obesity to heart conditions. The defense of UPFs by some of these "experts" solidifies a troubling alignment with industry narratives that prioritize profits over public health.

Moreover, the article and its defenders often ignore the disproportionate impact of UPFs on populations who may lack access to healthier alternatives. While it’s true that lifestyle choices and diet quality matter, downplaying the risks of UPFs does a disservice to public health messaging. Instead, there should be a concerted effort to promote whole, minimally processed foods and to challenge the food industry's pervasive influence on our diets.

This is especially perplexing considering that just last year, Time published an article warning about the significant health risks associated with these foods, citing their links to obesity, heart disease, and other chronic conditions. The stark contrast between these two narratives has led many to speculate that Time may be trying to undermine public concerns, particularly in response to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s outspoken criticism of UPFs and his broader health agenda.

The timing of this new article is particularly suspicious, as it follows closely on the heels of Kennedy’s decision to endorse Donald Trump, with a promise to "Make America Healthy Again" by addressing the corporate corruption that has allowed unhealthy foods to dominate the American diet. Critics argue that the article’s attempt to rehabilitate UPFs' image may be an effort to discredit Kennedy's message and sow doubt among the public.

This isn't the first time large publications have faced backlash for seemingly defending harmful food practices. Other large publications have also published articles that downplay the risks associated with sugar and artificial ingredients, often citing studies funded by the food industry. These narratives typically emerge when public concern over these issues starts to gain traction, leading many to suspect that these publications are influenced by industry interests seeking to protect their profits.

Moreover, those who challenge these industry-friendly narratives are often dismissed as conspiracy theorists or alarmists. This tactic effectively stifles important discussions about the real impacts of UPFs on public health. The use of anecdotal evidence, such as the experience of a dietician featured in the Time article who claimed to feel better after a month on an ultra-processed diet, distracts from the overwhelming body of research that points to the dangers of these foods.

The controversy isn't just about the health impacts of these foods; it’s also about the integrity of public health discourse. By framing dissenters as outliers, the industry and its allies in the media effectively silence critical voices, making it harder for the public to make informed choices about their health and choose better options.

Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.