The rhetoric that the food industry is “poisoning us,” revived by figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) and the return of Donald Trump in 2025, marks a new politicization of ultra-processed foods (AUTs). This speech is neither new nor entirely based on facts. For years, various groups have demonized the role of TUEs in our modern diet, emphasizing their negative health effects while often ignoring the broader context and benefits of food processing.
Ultra-processed foods are products manufactured industrially, usually through intensive processes. They often contain additives such as flavors, colors, emulsifiers and preservatives to improve taste, appearance and shelf life. These foods are often high in sugar, bad fats, sodium and calories, with little fiber, vitamins or minerals. Excessive consumption of TUEs has been linked to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers, as many studies have shown. However, the discourse against TUEs often oversimplifies the complexity of food processing, neglecting its essential contributions to public health, food safety, and societal progress.
Food processing has played an important role in human development, providing a range of benefits often overlooked in public debate. Many processed foods are fortified with essential vitamins and minerals, helping to address once-common nutritional deficiencies. For example, fortified cereals and breads have helped combat diseases like rickets and goiter by providing essential nutrients such as vitamin D and iodine.
Processing also significantly improves food safety by reducing the risk of foodborne illness and extending shelf life. This ensures that perishable products can be transported over long distances and remain available in different regions, contributing to food security and reducing waste. The modern food industry has created quick and affordable meal options that are essential for people with limited time or resources. For many, TUEs are a lifeline, allowing them to manage busy schedules without sacrificing access to meals.
One of the most profound, but less recognized, contributions of food processing has been its role in promoting gender equality. By reducing the time needed to prepare meals, the treatment enabled women to participate more fully in the workforce and pursue opportunities beyond domestic responsibilities. In Canada, for example, the time women spend cooking has declined significantly over the decades. In the 1960s, women spent around 60% of their total household time on tasks like cooking, cleaning and laundry. By the 2020s, this figure had fallen to around 25%. This change reflects broader societal developments, including greater participation of women in professional life, technological advances in food and a more equitable distribution of domestic responsibilities.
Although cooking remains an important cultural and personal activity, modern conveniences have allowed individuals to achieve a better work-life balance, allowing them to pursue careers and other aspirations while maintaining their homes.
Critics of the treatment of food processing often fail to appreciate its role in modern society. Demonizing TUEs as inherently harmful ignores the historical and current benefits of transformation in general. It is essential to recognize that it is not the processing itself that is the enemy, but rather the excessive consumption of certain products that poses a problem. By focusing on responsible and innovative consumption, the food industry can continue to meet the evolving needs of society.
As for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his anticipated role in a Trump administration, the rhetoric around TUEs will likely intensify in 2025. However, undermining the food processing industry would be a short-sighted approach with potentially serious consequences. devastating for the agri-food sector. A thriving food economy relies on strong processing infrastructure to ensure food security, affordability and access.
If RFK chooses to further politicize food processing, its ability to contribute significantly to the agri-food economy will be seriously tested. Growing the sector without leveraging the benefits of food processing would be an impossible task. If history teaches us anything, such an approach would probably be unsustainable. Good luck, RFK.
