Gary Taubes on the 'ultra-processed food' category as a scientific concept: warns against

Gary Taubes warns that the “ultra-processed food” (UPF) label is too vague and mechanism-free to guide policy or personal eating. He says the category shifts focus from a food’s nutrient content to how and where it was made, and may end up defining “almost anything that comes from a factory as bad.” He debated the question publicly with endocrinologist David Ludwig on Metabolic Mind (September 9, 2025) and developed the argument at length in his June 23, 2026 Atlantic essay “A Fancy Name for Junk Food.”

His stated reasoning: he argues that a low-carb protein bar and a candy bar can both count as ultra-processed while having very different effects on blood sugar, insulin, hunger, and weight — so a category that lumps them together tells you nothing useful. The key question, in his view, is what a food does in the body, not where it was manufactured.

Counterpoint worth noting: proponents of the UPF concept, including its originators and MAHA-aligned researchers, argue that the category captures real associations between industrially formulated diets and chronic disease, and that processing-related features (additives, formulation, hyper-palatability) have mechanisms of their own. Taubes’s own debate partner Ludwig shares the MAHA orbit but defends aspects of the framing. This site reports both sides without taking a position.

This page chronicles a stated position of the person above. It is not medical advice and not the site's own conclusion.