Insights from The Lancet Editorial, June Issue | With a Nutricomms Perspective.
A recent editorial in the upcoming June issue of The Lancet has reignited the discussion on ultra-processed foods (UPFs)—this time with a sharper focus on their contribution to premature mortality. Based on new international data, the editorial calls for urgent action on UPFs, which now account for over half of the total energy intake in countries such as the UK and USA.
Defined by the NOVA classification as industrial formulations often high in salt, sugar, and fat—and low in fibre, protein, and essential nutrients—UPFs also include various additives like emulsifiers, stabilisers, colourants, and sweeteners. While their role in diet-related diseases has long been documented, the association with early death between the ages of 30 and 69 is an alarming development.
The data show a 3% increase in the relative risk of all-cause mortality for every 10% rise in UPF consumption. In 2018, this translated to an estimated 18,000 premature deaths in the UK alone, compared to just 3,000 in Colombia, where UPF intake is considerably lower.
The Nutricomms Take: What This Means for Industry
At Nutricomms, we see this editorial as more than a warning—it is a strategic signal to all stakeholders across the food and beverage sector. The evidence base around UPFs is maturing, and public health pressure is intensifying. Industry players must now consider how to proactively respond, not reactively defend.
Policy responses, including taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages, are gaining momentum. But the path forward will also require:
- Transparent front-of-pack labelling to guide informed consumer choice.
- Reformulation strategies that reduce reliance on additives and improve nutritional profiles.
- Responsible marketing practices, particularly when targeting families and children.
- Support for accessibility and affordability of healthier options through pricing and promotion.
- Collaboration with public health experts to future-proof portfolios and mitigate reputational risk.
We also urge caution against a blanket approach. Not all UPFs are nutritionally equivalent, and not all non-UPFs are beneficial. Clearer definitions, better product classification, and more targeted guidance are needed. The classification system itself is under scrutiny, and more precision is needed to inform evidence-based reformulation and innovation. Most importantly, public communication must reflect the realities of modern eating—where food choices are influenced by cultural norms, affordability, taste, time constraints, and convenience.
Strategic Implications
UPFs are now more than a public health concern—they are a reputational and regulatory risk. Brands that lead in transparency, product development, and public engagement will be better positioned in an era of increasing consumer scrutiny and policy intervention.
We empower companies to navigate the shifting nutrition landscape with clarity, credibility, and confidence. Through strategic, evidence-based communications—ranging from stakeholder messaging and consumer education to labelling guidance and regulatory insights—we help align commercial objectives with public health priorities. Our mission is to ensure that nutrition science doesn’t remain siloed in academic journals, but instead informs real-world decisions across the food system. By shaping the conversation and advancing informed, responsible narratives, we can work together to build a food environment that supports both population health and sustainable business growth.
Because in today’s food economy, nutritional credibility is competitive advantage.
Read more:
