N※N

The Difficulty in Defining 'Bad' Foods

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/09/05/the-difficulty-in-defining-bad-foods.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Friday, September 5th 2025 at 4:48 GMT by thedispatch.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Redefining “Bad Foods”: Why the Labels We Use Are Still a Work in Progress

The idea that certain foods are unequivocally “bad” is a notion that feels intuitive. We’re told to cut out sugary drinks, limit processed meats, and avoid foods that carry “high” or “unhealthy” labels on packaging. Yet, as The Dispatch’s recent article “The Difficulty in Defining Bad Foods” shows, the reality is far more complex. Behind the simplified labels lies a tangled web of scientific debates, marketing tactics, and policy challenges that makes it hard to draw a clear line between wholesome and harmful foods.

1. The Problem of a Single Definition

Nutrition experts have long grappled with the question: What makes a food “bad”? The article opens by pointing out that there isn’t a single, universally accepted answer. While bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publish dietary guidelines, they largely focus on nutrient content rather than the broader context of food processing or marketing. The WHO’s 2018 recommendations, for example, advise limiting “free sugars” and “ultra-processed foods,” but the agency itself admits that these categories are evolving. The USDA’s MyPlate guidance, meanwhile, encourages a balanced plate of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, protein, and dairy—yet it doesn’t address the processing level of each component.

The Dispatch article notes that even within the scientific community, opinions diverge. Some researchers argue that nutrients are the primary determinant of a food’s health impact, while others emphasize the role of the food matrix and how it interacts with the body. The distinction matters: a piece of fortified cereal can provide essential vitamins, but a sugary, processed breakfast pastry may still contribute to excess calorie intake and metabolic issues.

2. The Role of Processing: The NOVA Classification

A key theme in the Dispatch piece is the emerging importance of food processing as a lens for judging healthfulness. The NOVA system, developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo, categorizes foods into four groups based on the extent and purpose of processing. Group 1 foods are unprocessed or minimally processed (e.g., fresh fruit, raw meat), Group 2 are processed culinary ingredients (butter, olive oil), Group 3 are processed foods (canned vegetables, cheese), and Group 4 are ultra-processed foods (soft drinks, chips, ready‑to‑eat meals).

The article cites several studies linking ultra‑processed food consumption to obesity, cardiovascular disease, and all‑cause mortality. For instance, a 2021 meta‑analysis in The Lancet found that higher intake of ultra‑processed foods was associated with a 14% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease. However, the Dispatch notes that the NOVA framework is not without criticism. Critics argue that it can oversimplify foods that may have a nuanced nutritional profile. A canned lentil, for example, could be categorized as a processed food, yet its nutrient density remains high.

3. Marketing and the “Health Halo”

The article spends a significant portion of its discussion on how marketing creates a “health halo” around certain products. Consumers often interpret “low‑fat,” “natural,” or “organic” labels as indicators of health, even when the product’s overall nutrition profile is questionable. The Dispatch references a 2020 investigation by the Journal of Marketing Research that found consumers were willing to pay more for products with perceived health benefits, even when the actual calorie and sugar content were higher.

This marketing dynamic is reinforced by front‑of‑pack (FOP) labeling systems. The article highlights Canada’s traffic‑light system and the UK’s nutrient‑facts “traffic light” as examples of efforts to simplify consumer choices. Yet, the effectiveness of these labels is mixed. In a 2023 study published in Public Health Nutrition, researchers found that while FOP labeling improved awareness of added sugars, it didn’t significantly alter purchasing behaviors in low‑income households.

4. Policy Responses and Their Limitations

Governments around the world are attempting to use policy levers to curb the consumption of foods deemed “bad.” The Dispatch article reviews two prominent examples: the U.S. federal “junk‑food” tax and the U.K.’s “sugar‑sweetened beverage” levy.

The U.S. proposal, which would impose a 1.5‑cent tax on sugary drinks, is still in the congressional debate stage. Critics argue that such taxes disproportionately affect low‑income communities, while proponents claim they could reduce sugar consumption and fund public health initiatives. In contrast, the U.K. government implemented a sugar tax in 2018, which led to significant reformulations by beverage producers and a 17% decline in the sugar content of drinks in 2021. The Dispatch notes, however, that the tax’s impact on overall sugar consumption has been modest, partly because consumers have shifted to other sweetened products not covered by the levy.

The article also mentions the EU’s “Health‑Claim Regulation,” which seeks to standardize claims like “low‑fat” and “high‑fiber.” While intended to reduce misleading claims, the regulation’s complexity and enforcement challenges have left many manufacturers uncertain about compliance.

5. The Need for a Holistic Framework

In the final section, the Dispatch article argues that defining “bad foods” requires a multi‑dimensional approach. Nutrition, food processing, marketing, cultural context, and socioeconomic factors all influence how a food is perceived and consumed. A holistic framework would integrate these variables, perhaps building on the NOVA classification while also accounting for nutrient density, portion size, and health outcomes.

The article concludes by calling for greater transparency from the food industry and more robust public education campaigns. It also urges researchers to adopt interdisciplinary methods—combining epidemiology, behavioral science, and economics—to develop clearer, actionable guidelines.

Key Takeaways

1. No Single Metric – Nutrient content, processing level, and marketing all play roles in determining a food’s health impact.
2. Ultra‑Processed Foods Matter – The NOVA system provides a useful, though imperfect, lens for identifying foods linked to adverse health outcomes.
3. Marketing Creates Misconceptions – Labels like “natural” or “low‑fat” can mask high sugar or calorie content, misleading consumers.
4. Policy Tools Are Mixed – Taxes and labeling reforms show promise but have limitations and may unevenly affect vulnerable populations.
5. A Holistic View Is Essential – Combining scientific evidence with socioeconomic and cultural insights is key to creating meaningful dietary guidelines.

By embracing this broader perspective, policymakers, health professionals, and consumers alike can move beyond the simplistic “good vs. bad” dichotomy and toward a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes a truly healthy diet.