In the keynote address of the day, Dr Michael Greger delivered a presentation that cut to the heart of one of the most pressing issues in modern nutrition: the rise of ultra‑processed foods. His slides, dense with data and comparisons, painted a sobering picture of how these products—despite their convenience and popularity—carry hidden costs for our health and wellbeing.

Greger’s framework began with the nutrient profile. Ultra‑processed foods often strip away phytonutrients, fibre, and antioxidants, leaving behind calorie‑dense, texture‑softened products that are less satiating.

This “de‑encapsulation” of calories means our bodies absorb energy more quickly, spiking insulin and promoting weight gain. Additives such as nitrites, emulsifiers, and excess salt or sugar compound the problem, while packaging chemicals introduce risks we rarely consider.

Healthy options displaced

The result? A food environment that displaces healthier options and fosters insulin resistance, gut dysbiosis, inflammation, and oxidative stress. Greger’s slides made clear that the issue isn’t just about empty calories—it’s about a cascade of biological disruptions.

One of the more provocative sections compared conventional meat with plant‑based meat alternatives. While both fall under the “ultra‑processed” umbrella, Greger highlighted important distinctions. Meat carries risks of fecal contamination, pathogens like Salmonella and Campylobacter, and residues from antibiotics and hormones. It also contributes to carcinogen exposure, oxidative stress, and endothelial dysfunction.

Plant‑based alternatives, though not immune to criticism, generally scored “usually better” across nutrient profiling systems such as Food Compass, Nutri‑Score, and Health Star Rating. They avoid many of the microbial and chemical hazards of meat, though they still rely on additives and can trigger digestive complaints (Greger wryly noted “methylcellulose” and “poop” in one slide). The takeaway was nuanced: plant‑based meats are not perfect, but they represent a step away from the most damaging aspects of animal products.

A striking comparison

Perhaps the most striking comparison came when Dr Greger set ultra‑processed meats and plant‑based alternatives against whole plant foods. Here, the advantages were unequivocal. Whole plants delivered fibre, antioxidants, and phytonutrients without the baggage of harmful additives or contaminants. They were “even better” in nearly every category—nutrient density, satiety, and long‑term health outcomes.

This hierarchy underscored a central theme: while plant‑based meat alternatives may be preferable to conventional meat, they are still a compromise. The gold standard remains minimally processed, whole plant foods.

Greger’s presentation was not just a catalogue of risks; it was a call to rethink our relationship with food systems. Ultra‑processed products dominate supermarket shelves because they are profitable, shelf‑stable, and engineered for taste. But their hidden costs—rising rates of diabetes, colorectal cancer, and metabolic disease—are borne by individuals and healthcare systems alike.

Editorial comment …

For Whole Food Living, Greger’s LM2025 talk is both a warning and an opportunity. The warning is clear: ultra‑processed foods are not neutral; they actively undermine our health. The opportunity lies in amplifying alternatives—celebrating whole plants, supporting local growers, and encouraging people to question the seductive convenience of packaged products.

Greger’s comparisons between meat, plant‑based alternatives, and whole plants provide a roadmap. If we must choose among ultra‑processed options, plant‑based is “usually better.” But if we want to thrive? Whole plants are the answer. It’s a message that aligns perfectly with our mission: to empower readers with evidence‑based insights that inspire healthier, more sustainable living.