Healthy vs Unhealthy UPFs? New HER Report Challenges the Way We Think About Ultra-Processed Foods.

For years, the conversation around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has largely been framed in black-and-white terms: processed equals unhealthy, minimally processed equals better.

But the science — and increasingly the policy discussion — is becoming far more nuanced.

A growing number of nutrition experts, scientific organisations, and public health stakeholders are now questioning whether all UPFs should be treated equally within dietary guidance and future regulation. Recent reports from Healthy Eating Research (HER) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) are adding momentum to this shift, arguing that important nutritional differences exist within the UPF category itself.

For the food and beverage industry, this changing narrative could have major implications for innovation, reformulation, regulation, and consumer trust.

Courtersy of the Healthy Eating Research – Technical Report May 2026

The UPF Category Is No Longer Seen as Uniform

The term “ultra-processed food” has become one of the most powerful — and controversial — concepts shaping modern nutrition discussions.

Yet one of the biggest scientific and regulatory challenges is that the category itself is incredibly broad.

Depending on the classification system used, UPFs may include:

Sugary soft drinks
Confectionery
Packaged snacks
Processed meats
Wholegrain breakfast cereals
Fortified breads
Plant-based meat alternatives
Protein yogurts
Functional beverages
Infant formula

This diversity is increasingly forcing experts to ask an important question:
Can all UPFs realistically be discussed as nutritionally equivalent?

According to the recent HER expert panel, the answer is increasingly no.

A More Nuanced Scientific Conversation Is Emerging

The latest HER report attempts to move beyond simplistic classifications by proposing a more evidence-informed framework for evaluating UPFs in public policy. Rather than focusing solely on processing levels, the report highlights the importance of considering nutritional composition, dietary contribution, and health impact.

Similarly, PCRM recently emphasised that while certain ultra-processed foods — particularly processed meats and sugary products — are consistently associated with poorer health outcomes, many plant-based UPFs may actually support healthier dietary patterns.

This is an important distinction.

Plant-based foods classified as UPFs, such as:

Wholegrain breads
Breakfast cereals
Fortified plant-based products
Canned beans
Certain meat alternatives

may still contribute positively to fibre intake, micronutrient intake, protein diversity, and overall dietary quality.

At the same time, many experts continue to express concern around dietary patterns high in energy-dense, hyper-palatable UPFs rich in added sugars, sodium, and saturated fats.

In other words, the conversation is shifting from:
“Are UPFs good or bad?”
toward:
“Which UPFs, in which contexts, and compared to what alternatives?”

Processing Alone Does Not Define Nutritional Quality

One of the most important themes emerging from recent discussions is that food processing itself is not inherently harmful.

Processing can serve many critical functions within modern food systems, including:

Food safety
Shelf-life extension
Fortification
Convenience
Accessibility
Waste reduction
Affordability
Nutritional stability

This is particularly relevant as consumers increasingly demand foods that combine:

High protein
Fibre enrichment
Functional wellness
Gut health support
Convenience
Longer shelf life
Affordable nutrition

Delivering these benefits at scale often requires food technology and industrial processing.

At the same time, researchers continue exploring why some UPFs may be associated with adverse health outcomes. Potential mechanisms being investigated include:

Energy density
Hyper-palatability
Texture and eating speed
Food reward pathways
Dietary displacement effects
Gut microbiome interactions

However, many scientists also acknowledge that observational evidence remains complex and that causal pathways are still being debated.

The Food Industry’s “Processing Paradox”

The industry now faces an increasingly difficult contradiction.

Consumers say they want:

Natural foods
Minimal ingredients
Fewer additives
Less processing

Yet they also actively seek:

Protein-enriched products
Functional beverages
Fibre-fortified foods
Gut health products
Plant-based convenience
Shelf-stable nutrition
Affordable wellness

This creates what could increasingly become the defining tension of the next decade:
Consumers want both simplicity and functionality — even when those goals may conflict.

Why This Debate Matters Commercially

The growing nuance around UPFs has major implications for the food and beverage sector.

1. “Clean Label” Strategies May Need Rethinking

For years, brands have leaned heavily on claims such as:

No preservatives
No additives
Kitchen cupboard ingredients
Five ingredients or less

While commercially effective, these messages may also reinforce the idea that food technology and additives are inherently undesirable.

As the science evolves, companies may increasingly need to balance:

Transparency
Functionality
Scientific credibility
Sensory quality
Shelf stability
Consumer reassurance

2. Positive Nutrition Is Becoming More Important

The next phase of innovation may increasingly focus not only on what products remove, but on what they actively deliver.

This includes:

Fibre
Protein
Micronutrients
Satiety support
Functional ingredients
Gut health benefits
Cognitive wellness
Healthy ageing support

This “positive nutrition” approach is becoming central to future product development strategies.

3. Regulation Is Becoming More Complex

Governments globally are exploring potential UPF-related policies involving:

Front-of-pack labelling
School food standards
Advertising restrictions
Fiscal policies
Procurement frameworks

However, the lack of a globally harmonised definition continues creating uncertainty for regulators and manufacturers alike.

This means the industry may increasingly need to prepare for multiple regional approaches rather than one unified global framework.

The Real Shift Is Bigger Than UPFs

Ultimately, the current debate reflects something much broader than food processing alone.

Consumers are increasingly looking for foods that support:

Long-term wellbeing
Preventive health
Metabolic resilience
Healthy ageing
Mental wellbeing
Everyday functionality
Affordable health

At the same time, public health systems are grappling with rising rates of obesity and chronic disease, while policymakers search for practical solutions that balance health, accessibility, and affordability.

The result is a nutrition landscape becoming simultaneously more polarised — and more sophisticated.

Final Thoughts

The UPF conversation is no longer simply about “processed versus unprocessed.”

It is evolving into a much larger discussion around:

Nutritional quality
Food functionality
Public health
Consumer trust
Scientific evidence
Accessibility
Food technology
Preventive wellness

For the food and beverage industry, the challenge now is not simply defending processing, but helping consumers better understand the difference between nutritional quality and processing alone.

The companies best positioned for the future may not necessarily be those with the shortest ingredient lists, but those capable of combining:

Nutritional credibility
Functional innovation
Transparency
Scientific communication
Consumer relevance
Affordable wellbeing solutions

As the science evolves, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the future of the UPF debate will likely be far more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

Read more: