The Saga Continues: Processed Plant-Based Foods Are Healthy, Again!

When one study condemns and another redeems, the truth lies deeper than the headlines.

Last week’s “miracle burger” becomes this week’s “health hazard.” Nutrition news swings like a pendulum in an infodemic, where emotion spreads faster than evidence and science struggles to keep up [1]. Amid the noise, fear-based messaging — especially around so-called ultra-processed foods — has turned public health into a culture war, with plant-based diets squarely in the line of fire.

In Part I of this series, The Truth About Plant-Based Foods: How to Separate Nutrition from Noise, we examined how that conversation was derailed by a moral panic, one fueled more by industry and media than by evidence. This follow-up picks up where that story left off: the same debate, the same confusion, but also a chance to bring the conversation back to center.

When Research Finally Catches Up

Just weeks after one study condemned ultra-processed plant-based foods, another challenged that verdict. A Lancet paper argued these products were no better for heart health than animal foods [2], while a new review published by Springer Nature reached the opposite conclusion — showing that well-formulated plant-based alternatives like soy milk and meat substitutes may actually improve cardiometabolic outcomes compared with unprocessed animal foods [3].

Unlike the Lancet study, which lumped all “ultra-processed” plant foods into one category, blurring the line between nutrient-rich products and junk [4], and relied more on statistical models than on metabolic evidence — the new review examined what these foods actually do in the body, not just how they’re classified.

Summarized by Vegconomist for general readers [5], the Springer review looked at research comparing unprocessed animal products with ultra-processed plant-based alternatives such as soy milk, plant-based meats, and margarines. Across multiple trials, these foods — though technically “processed” — were linked to lower LDL cholesterol, reduced inflammation, better weight management, and fewer compounds associated with cancer risk.

The takeaway is clear: well-designed plant-based foods can, at times, outperform “unprocessed” animal ones in supporting heart and metabolic health.

The Trouble with Labels

This scientific tug-of-war matters because the way we classify food shapes how we understand it. Systems like NOVA — designed to rank foods by processing level rather than nutrient quality — were never meant to evaluate modern plant-based innovation. By their rules, a fortified soy yogurt and a candy bar end up in the same category.

Experts now argue that NOVA has drifted from its original purpose and is often treated more as a moral guide to eating than a scientific tool [1]. As a result, the term ultra-processed food reflects ideology more than evidence — ignoring nutrient density, ingredient quality, and real-world context.

This is what Vegan Curator has emphasized from the start: the measure of a food isn’t its process, but its purpose. If a plant-based product replaces an animal-based one while improving cholesterol, inflammation, and sustainability outcomes, it isn’t “junk”; it’s progress.

The Bigger Picture

What we’re witnessing isn’t just scientific evolution — it’s an information crisis. In today’s infodemic, nutrition claims travel fast, lose context, and harden into absolutes: “poison,” “fake,” “dangerous.” The problem isn’t just that science keeps changing — it’s how uncertainty gets exploited for profit, fueling anxiety, distrust, and a public easier to market to [1].

This environment feeds the cycle: one week, ultra-processed plant-based foods are villains; the next, they’re heroes. Yet the truth hasn’t changed: food is complex, science is iterative, and health is cumulative.

Instead of swinging between extremes, we need better literacy—one that asks practical questions:

• What nutrients does this food provide?
• What does it replace?
• How does it fit into a real-world diet?

Viewed this way, the latest research isn’t a reversal; it’s a recalibration: science catching up to common sense.

Putting It Into Practice

Building that literacy starts with how we eat every day. Thoughtfully chosen processed plant-based foods can support both health and satisfaction. The key is knowing which ones to choose and how to use them.

As discussed in Part I, the healthiest diets rest on a foundation of whole foods — fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes — complemented by well-formulated processed options that add convenience, flavor, and variety.

Here’s how to make it work:

• Start with balance. Build meals around minimally processed staples such as tofu, tempeh, or fortified soy milk as everyday protein sources.
• Add function, not fillers. Choose products with purposeful ingredients — fiber, protein, and micronutrients — over those heavy in oils or refined starches.
• Save indulgence for intention. Enjoy plant-based comfort foods like burgers or desserts occasionally, not as dietary staples.

Processed doesn’t have to mean poor quality. When nutrition drives formulation, these foods can bridge gaps, satisfy cravings, and make plant-based eating both practical and pleasurable.

Where This Leaves Us

Science may appear to change its mind — but more often, it’s the headlines that change it for us. The new review doesn’t make ultra-processed plant-based foods perfect; it simply puts them in perspective. Processing isn’t the enemy; poor formulation is.

Read together, the Lancet and Springer papers tell a fuller story: the former warns against assuming all plant-based foods are healthy by default, while the latter cautions against dismissing them just because they’re processed. What matters isn’t the label ultra-processed but nutritional intent: what a food contributes to your diet, not just how it’s made.

So are processed plant-based foods friend or foe? When the noise fades, one truth remains: informed choices — not fear — make plant-based eating powerful.

References

[1] O’Hara, Beverley. “Why Stigmatising Ultra-Processed Food Could Be Doing More Harm Than Good.” The Conversation, October 27, 2025. https://theconversation.com/why-stigmatising-ultra-processed-food-could-be-doing-more-harm-than-good-267711.

[2] Prioux, Clémentine, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Bernard Srour, Léopold K. Fézeu, Julia Baudry, Sandra Wagner, Serge Hercberg, Mathilde Touvier, and Benjamin Allès. “Cardiovascular Disease Risk and the Balance between Animal-Based and Plant-Based Foods, Nutritional Quality, and Food Processing Level in the French NutriNet-Santé Cohort: A Longitudinal Observational Study.” The Lancet Regional Health – Europe (October 2025): 101470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101470.

[3] Jiménez, Mariana Del Carmen Fernández-Fígares, and Miguel López-Moreno. “Ultra-Processed Plant Foods: Are They Worse than Their Unprocessed Animal-Based Counterparts?” Current Nutrition Reports 14 (2025): 115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-025-00704-6.

[4] Mridul, Anay. “Study Claims Plant-Based Diets Aren’t Nutritious If They’re Ultra-Processed – Experts Disagree.” Green Queen Media, October 27, 2025. https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/plant-based-diets-ultra-processed-upf-heart-disease-meat-study/.

[5] Vegconomist. “Study: Ultra-Processed Plant-Based Foods May Offer Better Cardiometabolic Outcomes Than Unprocessed Animal Products.” Vegconomist – The Vegan Business Magazine, October 30, 2025. https://vegconomist.com/studies-numbers/ultra-processed-plant-based-foods-better-cardiometabolic-outcomes-unprocessed-animal-products/.