Ultra-Processed Foods – who is calling the shots?  

If you work in food and beverage and aren’t engaging in the ultra-processed foods (UPF) conversation, you need to be. It’s a trend with longevity that can impact how you align your comms with consumer purchasing behaviour and NPD investment to stay ahead of the curb.  

The ultra-processed food debate is a nuanced narrative as the obsession with ‘healthy’ food and drinks increases, but our global population is equally reliant on UPF for food security, safety and affordability. In short, they are not going anywhere. There is however a lack of consistency when it comes to definitions that have food manufacturers butting heads with health experts and government bodies.  

It’s especially concerning as the UK has the highest consumption of ultra-processed foods in Europe. According to the British Medical Journal it makes up 57% of our food intake in adults, and 65% for children. Just this week a new global study from the AJPM concluded that high consumption of UPFs is linked to increased mortality rates. So— what’s to be done?  

What we can say with certainty is that this is a healthy debate.  

Our food system has developed hugely since the Nova Classification was established in 2009, and the limitations have become evident. UPFs sit in Group 4 with characteristics that reflect modern, industrial food technology, but they overlook key factors.  

1. It’s not a full picture

Nova was built to classify foods purely on the degree of processing not their overall impact on health. It’s one piece of the puzzle, lacking consideration of aspects like the source or quality of ingredients which has led to misunderstanding and an important truth: not all UPF are made equal.  

Whilst many assume that UPFs are indeed linked to negative health benefits, some foods under this classification have positive ones. For years in the UK cereals been fortified with vitamins and minerals that were known to be lacking in the population; in which the deficiencies were causing health issues.  

In short, a long ingredients list doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘bad for you’. Since 2009 there have been leaps in novel ingredients that Nova doesn’t consider. This oversimplified classification has made it easy to demonise specific categories, create bias and unnecessary hostility towards innovation like precision-fermentation and lab-grown technology in alternative proteins.  

Thankfully, there are inventive minds like those behind Zoe on the case. The UK-based food and nutrition service launched a ‘risk scale’ at the end of March that looks more holistically at the impact of processing on health, for better or worse.  

2. Social inequality

The desire, let alone ability to afford healthy foods is not something everyone in our society has access to. Advising people to regulate their consumption of Group 4/ UPF is not a new recommendation as far as health standards go, but we need to recognise how it comes from a place privilege.  

The Food Foundation’s “Broken Plate” report showed that the most deprived fifth (20%) of the UK population would need to spend approximately 45% of their disposable income on food to meet the requirements of the UK’s “Eatwell Guide”. This figure rises to 70% for households with children.  

Creating more equitable guidelines that take above social factors into account is vital to educate people on how to eat well with options that are also within their means. The demonisation of processed foods just isn’t helpful when it’s the majority of what a household can afford.  

It’s another reason why we need better classifications and distinction between the negative and positive impacts of processing foods. The processing of freezing vegetables preserves nutritional value, elongates shelf life and costs comparatively less than fresh produce. What’s bad about that?  

The responsibility of brands 

Without consensus on a definition and gaps in public education, brands have had the ability to create their own narrative to sell.  

Whether it be responding to the clean label trend or anything that promotes gut health, brands have a responsibility to use health guidelines ethically and not mislead consumers. In the UK, M&S recently sparked controversy with its ‘Only x Ingredient’ range for this very reason. Playing into the misconception that less ingredients equates to being better for you. Now in many cases this can be true, but when it comes to the likes of breads and cereals, the super-seeded option often has more nutritional benefits.  

Such trends are also influencing brands to reformulate products to have more transparency and natural ingredient sources, appealing to consumers motivated by health. People are actively seeking products that are fortified with specific vitamins and minerals, creating a surge in NPD to meet demand. But some of it just feels like it’s gone…a bit too far. Do we need chocolate that is good for the gut? Do we need to boost the protein in every beverage, or can coffee just be coffee?  

What seems to be missing from much of the conversation is the role different foods play outside of dietary health. Eating can be for culture, community, pure indulgence—just because it makes you feel comfort or joy?  

We’ll leave it with you to ponder, but framing foods as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ remains subjective while we work towards a universal classification of processed foods and their health impacts. Until then, practicing curiosity and following ‘everything in moderation’ is a healthy space to exist in.  

_______________

Want to find out more about how we can help your foodservice brand thrive? Then get in touch

Senior Growth Director, Andy Jordan | andy.jordan@catchafireagency.com