Why demonizing Processed Foods is a problem
Not all processed foods are created equal: a nutritional comparison
The problem with demonizing processed foods? It lacks nuance.
Demonizing processed foods oversimplifies a complex issue. Is the real problem ultra-processing itself, or is it the fact that many processed foods lack essential nutrients? Processing isn’t inherently bad; in fact, it serves a purpose. It extends shelf life, improves accessibility, and makes food more affordable, which is important for people who may not have the time, skills, or financial means to cook everything from scratch.
Instead of labeling all processed foods as ‘‘bad’’, we need to differentiate between foods that are simply processed for convenience and those that are engineered to be hyper-palatable and nutrient-poor. Not all processed foods are the enemy, (see my infographic) so maybe it’s time we shift the conversation.
Little disclaimer: The purpose of this article is not to make Snickers the villain or label it as some forbidden food. I love a Snickers bar. Do I eat it every day? No. Do I enjoy it as a treat from time to time? Hell yes. And honestly, whoever engineered it did a genius job: the chewiness, the crunchiness, the mix of sweet and salty… yum. This comparison is not to say one food is “bad” and the other is “good” I want to highlight the role different foods play in hunger, energy, and satiety so that we can make informed choices.
Nutritional breakdown: What’s inside matters
Before you come at me with "That’s not a fair comparison: food vs. sweets!" yes, I hear you. But the distinction matters no matter what type of food we’re talking about. Highly processed foods are often demonized because they tend to be high in added sugars, fats and sodium, while lacking essential nutrients.
What I’m trying to highlight with this Canned chili con carne vs. Snickers comparison is that not all processed foods are the same. One has minimal ingredients, a decent amount of fiber and protein, while the other is low in nutrients (except protein) and designed to be hyper-palatable.
So? My thoughts:
Consumers should have access to minimally processed, nutrient-dense options like canned chili because not everyone has the time, money, or ability to cook from scratch. (Removing highly processed foods is not a solution = not realistic )
Food manufacturers have a big responsibility.
Instead of just blaming consumers for poor choices, they need to prioritize healthier formulations by creating foods that are lower in added sugars and unhealthy fats while increasing fiber, protein, and essential nutrients. The demand for better options is there, and if highly processed foods are going to remain a staple in modern diets, they should at least support health rather than work against it.
Consumers also need to take accountability:
A Snickers bar isn’t meant to be a meal replacement or an everyday staple. The compound effect of regularly consuming ultra-processed, low-nutrient foods adds up over time.
Impact on appetite: Satiety vs. Craving More
When comparing the two foods, a Snickers bar and canned Chili con carne, there is a clear contrast in how they affect appetite, fullness, and cravings. This difference comes down to their macronutrient and micronutrient profiles, as well as how they interact with our hunger and reward systems.
The filling, satisfying Food (Chili con Carne)
This dish is likely to promote satiety (post meal fullness) and satiety( fullness during a meal) due to:
High protein content (from beef, pork, and beans) → Slows digestion, stabilizes blood sugar, and helps with satiety and satiation.
High fiber content (from beans, carrots, corn, peppers) → Supports gut health, slows gastric emptying, and keeps you full longer.
Complex carbs & whole foods → Gradual energy release, stable blood sugar levels and helps with satiety.
The macronutrient content combo → supports the release of hunger-regulating hormones, keeping you full for longer.
Low in calories, but high in nutrients → 100g serving of canned Chilli con carne contains 106 kcal, most of which come from complex carbs (and fibre) and protein. Calorie for calorie, chili con carne is far more filling and supportive of balanced energy levels than a Snickers bar.
End result? Satisfying, more likely to keep you full for few hours, steady energy levels, hunger regulating and less food-seeking behavior afterward.
The ‘‘More, more, more!’’ food (Snickers Bar)
Snickers, on the other hand, is a classic hyper-palatable food designed to keep you coming back for more. It's built for hedonic eating*. Here's why:
High sugar content (sugar, glucose syrup, inverted sugar, dextrose) → Blood sugar spike → Crash → Hunger rebound.
Fat + sugar combo (chocolate, caramel, peanuts, oils) → Activates reward centers in the brain, driving cravings.
Low fiber (1-2g per 100g) → Doesn't slow digestion, so you don’t feel as full.
Protein (from peanuts and milk) → Some satiety, but probably not enough to offset the sugar/fat-driven hunger response.
Satured fat → was not even listed on the label (lack of transparency).
Provides quick-digesting sugars → faster hunger return.
Energy dense, but low in nutrients → 100g serving of Snickers contains 488 kcal, most of which come from sugar and fat.
End result? Encourages more hedonic eating, there is a quick energy spike, followed by a crash, leading to more cravings and possibly overeating.
*Hedonic eating isn’t inherently wrong (I think), it’s normal to eat for pleasure: it’s how our brains evolved to seek out and enjoy calorie-dense foods, just like a hunter-gatherer would devour honey in one sitting. The difference is, we no longer live in a world of food scarcity, and the likelihood of hunter-gatherers gulping down honey daily was low (not to mention, they were highly active). Meanwhile, we have access to “honey” every day, and with Uber Eats or DoorDash, we don’t even have to lift a finger.
The science behind Satiety
Protein & Fiber = Fullness → More of these = longer-lasting satiety.
Sugar + Fat = ‘‘Food Addiction’’ response → Triggers dopamine release (pleasure) but doesn’t signal fullness, leading to ‘‘I need more and more!’’
Whole foods stabilize energy → longer-lasting energy without the crash.
Hyperpalatable foods → like Snickers drive huge variations in blood sugar and hunger hormones (ghrelin & leptin).
Should we blame the food industry entirely for our health issues?
No. We can’t and we shouldn’t.
The food industry plays a major role by producing and marketing processed foods high in unhealthy ingredients. However, our health is also shaped by individual choices, genetics, socioeconomic factors, healthcare access, and lifestyle.
You can’t blame the food industry only.
Before pointing the finger, we should ask ourselves:
1.Are we moving enough?
2.Are we putting thought into our meals? Convenience foods are easy, but are we making mindful choices?
3.Are we prioritizing protein and fiber? These are crucial for satiety and overall well-being.
4.Are we sleeping enough? Poor sleep disrupts hunger hormones and cravings.
5.How much alcohol are we consuming? Excessive drinking impacts metabolism and health. Plus, alcohol has tons of calories (extra energy) we don’t need!
6.What about smoking? It’s a major risk factor for chronic diseases beyond diet.
7.Are we managing stress and practicing self-regulation? Stress eating and emotional eating can often override nutrition knowledge.
Final thoughts on processed foods
Maybe instead of demonizing all processed foods, we should allow for some nuance.
Not all processed foods are the same. The problem isn’t ‘processed foods’: it’s hyper-palatable, low-nutrient foods designed to override hunger cues (and logic) and keep us coming back for more.
Also rather than demonizing these foods, a better approach would be to reframe them as occasional treats, not everyday staples.
At the same time, food manufacturers need to be held accountable. They should be pushed to create products that support health rather than undermine it: with more fiber, more protein, and less sugar and saturated fat. The demand for better options is there, but change won’t happen unless consumers, health professionals, and policymakers push for it.
PS: If you’re looking for a nutritionist to guide you, I’d love to help!
I look forward to helping you thrive!
M.
