IS processed food inherently bad? Conventional health narratives increasingly say yes. The modern consumer is continuously bombarded with warnings about Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs), with studies linking them to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. In response, a booming "clean label" marketing movement promises safety through short, recognisable ingredient lists.

But this binary view—where nature is good and processing is evil—ignores economic reality, food science, and geographical necessity. Food isn’t unhealthy because it is processed; it becomes unhealthy when its nutrient balance is poor and we consume too much of it. As Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel N Rosenberg argue in their book, Feed the People!: Why Industrial Food Is Good and How to Make It Even Better, processing is not the enemy. It is simply a tool. The real issue is how the industry deploys it. 

To test how these labeling systems perform in the real world, I recently conducted an exercise with 29 industry professionals during a short course on oils and fats processing at Monash University Malaysia. Using actual commercial products across four categories, we mapped how the strict NOVA classification system (which groups foods by their level of processing rather than nutrients) clashes with practical reality.

The findings were telling.

In the Spreads category, we compared traditional butter against a palm-based margarine. Under NOVA, butter is classified as a minimally processed ingredient, while margarine is a UPF. Yet, margarine costs roughly one-third the price of butter and carries a significantly lower carbon footprint. For lower-income households, processing equals affordability and food security.

For Red Palm Oil, we compared two retail-grade options: an unrefined, low-temperature pressed red palm oil and a red palm olein. Both are sold locally in elegant glass bottles at a premium price point close to extra virgin olive oil. Both are minimally processed under NOVA and "clean label," retaining high levels of natural carotenoids (pro-vitamin A) and tocotrienols (vitamin E). However, the unrefined oil is semi-solid at room temperature with a distinct, nutty aroma — a traditional staple in Africa, but culturally less accepted by Malaysian households. Here, the specialised processing of red palm olein delivers the fully liquid, bland oil local home cooks prefer for daily culinary use without stripping away its therapeutic nutrients.  

The contrast became starkest in the Milk category, comparing human breast milk against powdered infant formula. Infant formula is an ultra-processed product, yet it incorporates structured lipids enzymatically produced from palm oil to replicate the exact fat digestion and calcium absorption profiles of breast milk. When breastfeeding is not a practical option, processing provides a medically vital lifeline.

Finally, we looked at Chocolate Bars from the same global brand. An Australian bar used pure cocoa butter, while the Malaysian formulation incorporated a cocoa butter equivalent. While critics dismiss alternatives as mere cost-cutters, the addition of the cocoa butter equivalent provides a crucial techno-functional benefit: it raises the chocolate's melting point. Without this specialised processing, chocolate would be a structural impossibility on tropical Malaysian shelves.

What these examples show is that neither the NOVA system nor "clean label" marketing can answer the central question: What is the actual nutritional value of the food?

Processors use additives to preserve safety, enhance shelf-life, and democratise nutrition. Dietitians rightly maintain that nutrient profiles — total calories, sugar, sodium, fiber, and healthy fats, are what truly dictate public health outcomes. A food is not unhealthy because it went through a factory; it is unhealthy if it is engineered to be hyper-palatable, calorie-dense, and stripped of fiber, driving chronic overconsumption.

This brings us to a major regulatory crossroads. While academic frameworks like NOVA have crept into national guidelines, including a cautionary mention in Malaysia’s Dietary Guidelines 2020, global regulators are hitting the brakes.

The most telling verdict arrived at the United Nations Codex Committee on Food Labelling meeting in May in Ottawa. The committee effectively halted attempts to codify strict UPF definitions into international trade standards, recognising the scientific impossibility of a unified definition. Conflating the mechanical method of processing with the nutritional quality of food risks stigmatizing safe, affordable, and essential local staples. 

We must move away from rigid food puritanism. A healthy diet is built on balance, moderation, and structural context, not absolute prohibitions.

Marcia Terra, a noted dietitian and advisory board member for diabetic care in Brazil, frames this pragmatically. Criticised by the "food police" for suggesting parents could use a spread of Nutella to entice a child to eat fruit, her response was unwavering: the goal is to build what to eat around the margins, not to dictate total avoidance. Adding a handful of peas, grated carrots, and soft cheese to a pack of instant noodles immediately transforms a maligned UPF into a balanced meal.

Health is defined by overall dietary balance and portion sizes, not by reductionist labels on a box. It is time our food policy reflected that same maturity.

Qua Kiat Seng is an adjunct senior lecturer at Monash University Malaysia with more than 50 years experience in the oils and fats industry.