A new UK study challenges the common belief that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are the main driver of overeating, highlighting instead the role of nutrition, taste, and consumer perceptions in shaping eating behaviour.
This builds on recent calls—including from the American Heart Association—for a more nuanced approach to how UPFs are categorised in science and policy.
What the Study Found
UPFs are often criticised for containing additives and being high in fat, sugar, or salt—ingredients said to make people “come back for more.” But new research published in Appetite suggests the picture is more complex.
Researchers at the University of Leeds asked more than 3,000 UK participants to rate over 400 everyday foods—from apples and jacket potatoes to noodles and custard creams—on how much they liked them, and how likely they were to overeat them.
The results showed:
- Foods low in fibre, calorie-dense, and less healthy per calorie were most often linked with overeating.
- Foods high in fat and carbohydrates were rated as more enjoyable.
- Perceptions strongly influenced behaviour: foods believed to be sweet, fatty, or processed were seen as riskier for overeating, regardless of their actual nutritional profile.
- By contrast, foods thought of as healthy or high in fibre were less associated with overeating.
Quantitatively, nutrition explained up to 60% of hedonic eating behaviour, while beliefs and sensory qualities explained up to 38%. Whether a food was classified as “ultra-processed” explained just 0–7%.
Rethinking the UPF Debate
The study adds weight to growing criticism of the Nova classification system, which places nutritionally diverse products under the single UPF label. While crisps, confectionery, and cola are undeniably less healthy, other UPFs—such as fortified cereals, tofu, or plant-based alternatives—can play a positive role in balanced diets.
“All UPFs are not created equal,” the researchers (Graham Finlayson and James Stubbs) noted. “People don’t eat labels—they eat foods that fit with their tastes, beliefs, and health goals.”
Warnings that treat all UPFs the same risk creating unnecessary confusion for consumers and may even discourage intake of beneficial foods.
Why It Matters
The findings carry implications for:
- Consumers: Building food literacy to understand what drives satisfaction and satiety can support healthier choices.
- Industry: Reformulation should focus on both enjoyment and satiety, not just lowering calories or creating hyper-palatable products.
- Health professionals: Guidance should consider how beliefs and perceptions influence eating—not just nutrient content.
- Policy: Oversimplified UPF frameworks may undermine evidence-based public health strategies.
Nutricomms Opinion
At Nutricomms, we see this study as a pivotal reminder that nutrition communication must go beyond labels. The narrative that “all UPFs are bad” risks alienating consumers and misguiding policy.
People choose food based on enjoyment, familiarity, and perceived health benefits—not processing classifications. This is a powerful opportunity for food businesses and public health organisations alike:
- To educate consumers on the role of fibre, satiety, and balance in preventing overeating.
- To innovate products that satisfy taste while supporting nutrition and wellbeing.
- To reframe communication away from fear-driven “avoidance” messaging and towards empowering, evidence-based guidance.
In short, the key is not demonising processing, but helping people enjoy food in a way that supports health and sustainability.
More information:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666325001825?via%3Dihub
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001365
