Tim Spector: Joe Wicks’s ‘killer’ protein bar is getting attention, but this is what he’s getting wrong about UPFs

As Channel 4 airs Joe Wicks’s new documentary claiming to expose the dark side of ultra-processed food, gut-health guru Tim Spector hits back and says he is ‘fear-mongering’ and oversimplifying complex science around this important issue

Joe Wicks’s new “Killer Bar” marketing stunt ahead of his Channel 4 show is certainly getting attention, and I can see why. Ultra-processed foods are a hot topic, and so are protein bars, so usually anything that gets people talking about them is a good thing. But I only partly agree in this case.

We certainly need more public awareness that some highly processed foods are dreadful for our health. We also need to highlight how pathetically weak our labelling and regulation still are.

While the Killer Bar might help more people understand that there is a real problem, it doesn’t tell them how to stay healthy. Turning nutrition into a horror story isn’t the answer. Calling a product “killer” makes for a great headline, yet it feeds the same kind of fear and confusion that’s already rife in food culture. People don’t just need more fear; they need a better understanding and practical help.

One of the main issues here is that ultra-processed foods are being painted as a single villain. In reality, they exist on a spectrum. The risks depend on what’s in them, how often we eat them and what the rest of our diet looks like. Lumping all the many thousands of ultra-processed foods into one bucket is just bad science. And, let’s not forget, making and heavily promoting an intentionally “inedible” bar is incredibly wasteful.

If we really want to change how and what people in this country eat, we need more than shock tactics; we need real action. That means working with the government, policy makers and the food industry to create environments where healthier choices are easier and more affordable. Whilst Joe’s accomplice, Dr Chris van Tulleken, has tried to make these sorts of changes at a government level, the Killer Bar and TV show aimed at the prime time TV public is likely to miss the mark on giving actionable, health-promoting advice.

A splashy prime time TV slot is a good start in getting more people to understand the grave problem we face as a nation, but it won’t create long-term change on its own.

Real progress will come from aligning incentives and shifting the broken system with legislation. So far, I haven’t seen much of that kind of thinking in Joe’s media trail, though I hope tonight’s viewing proves me wrong.

One of the main issues here is that ultra-processed foods are being painted as a single villain. In reality, they exist on a spectrum. The risks depend on what’s in them, how often we eat them and what the rest of our diet looks like

To help people eat better in our noisy food landscape, we need to give them tools that add clarity, not more confusion. On the Killer Bar’s website, for instance, it outlines the NOVA classification system. This tool was the first created 16 years ago to categorise foods based on their level of industrial processing.

As science has developed, it is now clear that NOVA is not useful for understanding how a product impacts health. It can only tell you how processed it is: it was never designed to say anything about risk. Importantly, the latest science demonstrates that it is not necessary – or possible – to entirely remove ultra-processed foods from our diet. This is vital for the public to understand. For many people, highly processed foods are their only option. They are readily available and relatively inexpensive during a time when money is tight. Simply telling people that the majority of their food is killing them is likely to breed hopelessness and unnecessary worry.

That’s exactly why we built the ZOE processed food risk scale. Using our large database and the latest nutrition science, it tells you how risky a product is simply by snapping a photo. Not all so-called ultra-processed foods are dangerous, certainly not after a few bites – in fact, some are neutral and some can even be beneficial, such as Weetabix, some peanut butters. We should be empowering people to make informed choices about food, not scaring them into submission.

Joe’s campaign will get headlines. But the truth is that we need much less finger-pointing, more nuance and a lot more honesty about what’s really on our plates. Big Food certainly has a lot to answer for, but fear tactics won’t hit the mark. We need food decisions to be based on science and data.

We can’t afford to wait for the government to catch up. By giving people the right tools and insights to make informed choices, we can start driving the change needed to urgently improve the nation’s health.