I think the major problem is that no one can define what "processed" means in any consistent or objective sense. It's just a retcon'd category of things people already think of as unhealthy.
Flour, water, salt, yeast. Take those and make bread. You have "processed" food. Now, take flour, water, salt, yeast, flour conditioners, sugars, added nutrients, etc. and make bread. You have "ultra-processed" foods.
Processed can be fine as long as you use healthy ingredients. Ultra-processed is never fine.
"NOVA classification system" by Monteiro et al's description of ultra-processed food is more or less exactly what I've described:
> A singular feature of NOVA is its identification of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are not modified foods, but formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes (hence ‘ultra-processed’). All together, they are energy-dense, high in unhealthy types of fat, refined starches, free sugars and salt, and poor sources of protein, dietary fibre and micronutrients. Ultra-processed products are made to be hyper-palatable and attractive, with long shelf-life, and able to be consumed anywhere, any time.
Previously we would just call this "junk food" rather than make some insinuation about "processing," which is still undefined and without meaning.
