A leading food chemist is challenging prevailing narratives surrounding ultra-processed foods, arguing for a more nuanced and less alarmist approach to public health messaging. Thomas Henle, a researcher at Dresden University of Technology, contends in a recent interview with “Der Spiegel” that there’s a lack of conclusive scientific evidence to broadly categorize ultra-processed foods as inherently unhealthy.
Henle’s critique centers on the methodology of many studies investigating the impact of these foods. He observes that much of the available research relies heavily on correlation rather than proven causation, frequently presenting observations rather than rigorous, verifiable data. He urges a more targeted investigation, suggesting that broad condemnations obscure the real risks. Specific examples he cites include sugary drinks with excessive sugar content and highly processed meat products, heavy in fat and salt, as being genuinely problematic when consumed frequently.
However, Henle’s commentary extends beyond simply questioning dietary concerns. He delivers a sharp rebuke of the NOVA food classification system, a widely used tool for categorizing foods based on their degree of processing. He labels the system as “ideologically motivated” criticizing it for promising a scientifically pure evaluation purportedly free from industry influence, yet lacking “solid, verifiable methods”. This, he argues, has concerning societal ramifications.
Henle specifically points to the potential for the NOVA system to inadvertently reinforce traditional gender roles. He suggests it has the effect of reviving expectations around women’s caregiving responsibilities, cloaked in the language of science and public health. This, he warns, can trigger feelings of guilt in women who don’t have the time or resources to prepare all their meals from scratch, representing a potential setback for gender equality. He frames the phenomenon as a concerning trend, prioritizing moralized food choices over an understanding of complex lifestyle factors – such as caloric intake and physical activity – which are often the primary drivers of ill health. Ultimately, Henle’s stance advocates for a more rational and scientifically grounded discussion around food and well-being, rather than succumbing to overly simplistic and potentially damaging narratives.
