Public and policy interest in Ultra-processed foods (UPF) continues to grow, fuelled by media coverage and observational research linking higher UPF consumption with poorer health outcomes. However, the debate often overlooks the perspectives of those who design, reformulate and manufacture foods.
A recent Nutrition Bulletin article reports on a 2024 expert roundtable convened by the British Nutrition Foundation, bringing together food scientists, technologists, engineers and nutrition researchers to examine whether current narratives around UPF meaningfully support healthier and more sustainable food systems .
The discussion highlighted both the limitations of the UPF concept and the opportunities food processing offers when applied thoughtfully and evidence-based.
Ultra-processed foods: associations without consensus
The roundtable acknowledged that diets high in UPF are consistently associated with adverse health outcomes in observational studies. However, participants emphasised that association does not equal causation. Limitations in the Nova classification system, residual confounding, and inconsistent food categorisation make it difficult to isolate processing itself as the primary driver of harm.
Importantly, not all foods classified as UPF are nutritionally poor. Some contribute meaningfully to intakes of fibre, micronutrients and wholegrains, while others support populations with specific nutritional needs. This raises concern that blanket messaging around UPF may oversimplify complex dietary patterns and unintentionally undermine public health goals.
Reformulation: risk of unintended consequences
Food reformulation was identified as a key area where UPF narratives may have unintended effects. Industry reformulation is already driven by multiple pressures, including HFSS regulations, fiscal measures, front-of-pack labelling, voluntary targets, supply chain disruptions and sustainability goals.
Participants warned that reformulating foods primarily to avoid a “UPF label” could be misplaced or even regressive. For example:
- Removing authorised additives or low- and no-calorie sweeteners may hinder sugar and calorie reduction efforts.
- Eliminating preservatives could increase food waste, shorten shelf life and raise safety risks, particularly for SMEs.
- Nutritional quality may worsen if fat, sugar or salt levels increase as a result of ingredient substitution.
While the UPF debate may encourage manufacturers to reflect more critically on ingredient choice, participants stressed that reformulation should prioritise nutritional outcomes and safety, rather than classification systems alone.
Looking beyond nutrients: texture, structure and eating behaviour
A key insight from the discussion was the need to move beyond nutrients alone when assessing food “healthiness”. Emerging evidence suggests that energy density, food texture and eating rate play an important role in energy intake and satiety.
Food structure and material properties can influence how quickly foods are consumed, how they break down during digestion, and how nutrients are absorbed. Participants highlighted opportunities for food technology to design products that encourage slower eating or lower energy intake rates—without compromising acceptability.
This approach reframes processing not as a problem to eliminate, but as a tool that can be leveraged to support healthier eating behaviours.
Processing, sustainability and resilient food systems
The roundtable also explored the role of food processing in sustainable food systems. Participants emphasised that processing underpins food safety, affordability, accessibility and resilience—particularly in the context of climate change, geopolitical instability and supply chain shocks.
Emerging technologies, including milder processing techniques, digital optimisation tools and ingredient innovation, were highlighted as promising avenues to reduce environmental impact while maintaining nutritional quality. However, caution was raised around rapid changes driven by sustainability narratives without sufficient technical expertise or evidence, particularly among smaller producers.
Communicating complexity to consumers
Participants expressed concern that simplified messages portraying all UPF as unhealthy risk confusing consumers and eroding trust in food science. Many consumers report actively avoiding UPF, despite limited ability to identify them correctly, and avoidance does not necessarily lead to healthier food choices.
The discussion highlighted the limitations of existing labelling systems, including both nutrient-based schemes and processing classifications, in capturing the multidimensional nature of food healthiness. Greater emphasis on consumer education, transparency and balanced communication was seen as essential to support informed decision-making.
What does this mean for the food industry?
For food manufacturers and innovators, the discussion reinforces several key points:
- Processing is not inherently negative and remains essential for delivering safe, affordable and nutritious foods at scale.
- Reformulation strategies should be nutrition- and evidence-led, rather than driven by attempts to reclassify products out of UPF categories.
- There is growing opportunity to innovate beyond nutrients, incorporating food structure, texture and eating behaviour into product design.
- Transparent communication about processing methods and ingredient functionality may help rebuild consumer trust and counter misinformation.
- Holistic approaches that consider nutrition, sustainability, safety, affordability and acceptability together will be increasingly important.
Policy implications: towards proportionate, evidence-based guidance
From a policy perspective, the roundtable highlighted the need for caution in embedding UPF concepts into dietary guidelines or regulation without stronger mechanistic evidence.
Key considerations include:
- Existing nutrient-based policies (e.g. HFSS frameworks) may already address many health concerns attributed to UPF.
- Blanket discouragement of UPF risks unintended consequences, including reduced nutrient intakes, higher food costs and increased waste.
- Future guidance would benefit from greater nuance, distinguishing between types of processing, product composition and consumption context.
- Investment in mechanistic and intervention research is essential to clarify which aspects of processing—if any—drive adverse health outcomes.
A more balanced path forward
The roundtable concluded that while the UPF concept has been effective in stimulating debate, food processing should be viewed as part of the solution, not the problem. Progress towards healthier and more sustainable diets will require collaboration across nutrition science, food technology, policy and communication—grounded in evidence, nuance and systems thinking.
References
