The Free Press
Introducing: The Free Press Community
ForumNewslettersSign InSubscribe
In Defense of Processed Foods
Processed foods, even ultra-processed ones, are not as harmful as many insist, write the authors. (Archive Photos via Getty Images)
Yes, America has a diet problem. No, it’s not because your bread comes in a bag.
By Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel N. Rosenberg
02.17.26 — Health and Self-Improvement
No description available.
--:--
--:--
Upgrade to Listen
Produced by ElevenLabs using AI narration
257
111

Processed foods have become the go-to villain in America’s health story. Picture the packages crowding supermarket aisles: frozen dinners, canned food, soda, chips. They’re packed with preservatives and additives and often blamed—especially by champions of the Make America Healthy Again movement—for soaring rates of obesity and chronic disease. On Sunday, Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would “act on” a citizen petition calling for an overhaul of how such foods are regulated.

But just how harmful are they, really?

That’s the central question in a new book by professors Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel N. Rosenberg, released Tuesday. Feed the People! Why Industrial Food Is Good and How to Make It Even Better doesn’t deny that the modern industrial food system has serious flaws. Still, the authors argue, it has dramatically improved food access and safety—reshaping public health in ways that would have once seemed unimaginable.

In the excerpt below, adapted from the book, they contend that processed foods—even ultra-processed ones—aren’t the dietary demons many make them out to be. And today’s calls to purge them entirely and “eat clean,” they suggest, offer no magic fix. In fact, such advice may even leave us worse off. —The Editors

In 1929, the canned-meat company Libby, McNeill & Libby printed a now-legendary pumpkin-pie recipe on the side of cans of its 100% Pure Pumpkin. It was an enormous hit, and pumpkin pie became a national superstar. But the can’s branding wasn’t quite accurate—and still isn’t. According to FDA regulations, the contents of a can of pumpkin can be made of a variety of squashes we don’t conventionally call pumpkins. And, in fact, most canned pumpkin you’ve ever eaten is probably something called a Dickinson squash.

Apologies if you’re a pumpkin purist. But if you are, and you’ve just found this out, what’s the alternative? Roasting and pureeing a pumpkin yourself? That’s a bad idea. Store-bought pumpkins don’t have the right starch or water content for the custard. Go to any bakery or grocery the week before Thanksgiving and ask them what they use for their pies. They’ll tell you the truth: It’s from the can.

Subscribe to Unlock This Story
Support fearless journalism and unlock all of The Free Press—your first week is on us.
Annual
$8.33/month
Billed as $100 yearly
Save $20!
Monthly
$10/month
Billed as $10 monthly
Already have an account?
Sign In
To read this article, sign in or start your free trial
Jan Dutkiewicz
Jan Dutkiewicz is an assistant professor at Pratt Institute and a contributing editor at The New Republic.
Gabriel N. Rosenberg
Gabriel N. Rosenberg is an associate professor at Duke University and a senior research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.
Tags:
Health
Food
MAHA
Comments
Join the conversation
Share your thoughts and connect with other readers by becoming a paid subscriber!
Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

No posts

For Free People.
LatestSearchAboutCareersForumShopPodcastsVideoEvents
Download the app
Download on the Google Play Store
©2026 The Free Press. All Rights Reserved.Powered by Substack.
Privacy∙Terms∙Collection notice