The term “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) has become a central topic in the global nutrition dialogue. The conversation around UPFs continues to grow in volume and complexity amongst consumers, media and public health experts. As conversations evolve, it's clear that not all UPFs serve the same purpose or carry the same implications, and there is a range of perspectives among experts on their role in the food system.

While some scientists, public health professionals, and consumers raise valid concerns about UPFs’ health impacts, others acknowledge their vital role in improving food access, affordability, convenience, and safety. In this rapidly evolving landscape, we need to move beyond a good-versus-bad narrative and embrace a more nuanced, evidence-informed approach.

The Current Conversation Around Ultra-Processed Foods

Scientific and Public Health Perspectives

1. Ongoing Research and Unanswered Questions

There is growing evidence associating high UPF consumption with health risks such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes (Monteiro et al., 2019; Srour et al., 2019; Lane et al., 2021). However, the precise mechanisms remain unclear. Is it the processing itself, the nutrient profiles and additives often found in these foods, or some other mechanism that drive adverse outcomes?

Research published in BMJ and other leading journals continues to explore these questions. The NOVA classification, widely used in public discourse, offers a broad categorization based on processing levels, but has also drawn criticism for oversimplifying complex nutritional realities.

2. Diverging Views in Public Health

Some public health professionals argue for limiting UPFs based on this correlation with negative health outcomes. Countries like Brazil and Chile have incorporated processing levels into dietary guidance and labeling systems. These policies often align with broader movements promoting natural, whole foods.

Others in public health and nutrition, however, warn against villainizing UPFs as a category . Many nutrient-dense, fortified foods, like whole-grain breakfast cereals, fruit yogurts, and shelf-stable soups, are technically classified as UPFs but offer substantial nutritional benefits (Hess et al., 2023).

In fact, for many communities, UPFs are critical tools in addressing food insecurity, providing shelf-stable, affordable, and often safe sources of nutrition.

Consumer Perceptions and Behavior

1. Widespread Confusion Around Processing

Despite the growing focus on UPFs, consumers are still unclear on what “ultra-processed” actually means. According to the International Food Information Council (IFIC), 70% of U.S. consumers don’t fully understand the term, yet 60% actively try to avoid UPFs. This disconnect underscores the need for better public education and more transparent communication from brands.

2. Regional and Cultural Differences

Views on UPFs vary widely across the globe. In China, nearly 80% of adults over 50 believe that reducing processed food intake improves health. European markets are increasingly wary of UPFs, with 70–85% of consumers reporting they try to limit them. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers tend to balance their concerns with continued demand for convenience and taste (IFIC, 2023).

3. Growing Demand for “Less Processed” Options

Rather than abandoning convenience altogether, many consumers are now seeking “less-processed” or “better-processed” alternatives that deliver both nutritional value and convenience. This demand is spurring innovation in clean-label, nutrient-dense options that meet modern lifestyle needs.

Policy and Regulatory Landscape

1. Global Government Responses

Several governments are responding to concerns around UPFs with policy interventions. For example, Chile and Mexico have adopted front-of-pack warning systems for foods high in sugar, sodium, and saturated fats—many of which fall into the UPF category. Stricter marketing restrictions, especially those targeting children, are also gaining traction globally (WHO, 2023).

2. Evolving Definitions and the Rise of Nutrient Density

As regulatory frameworks evolve, many are shifting focus from processing level alone to nutrient density and overall food quality. The U.S. FDA’s updated “healthy” claim, for example, emphasizes food group inclusion and specific nutrient limits, regardless of processing classification.

This pivot reflects a broader recognition that processing alone is not an adequate measure of a food’s impact—and that overly simplistic classifications could mislead consumers or hinder innovation.

Toward a More Balanced Approach

As the conversation around ultra-processed foods evolves, it's clear that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t reflect the complexity of today’s food system. Rather than generalizing, industry leaders have an opportunity to advance more thoughtful, evidence-based perspectives.

By acknowledging both the concerns and contributions of UPFs, particularly their role in food security, convenience, and innovation, brands can engage more meaningfully with both consumers and public health advocates.

To move forward:

• Clarify the role of processing and communicate its benefits and challenges transparently

• Support informed choices through better consumer education and labeling

• Explore innovation in clean-label and nutrient-dense products that respond to modern health and lifestyle needs

• Ensure accessibility remains a cornerstone of reformulation, product development, and distribution

Stay tuned for our next blog post where we’ll dive deeper into the ultra-processed food conversation and its long-term implications for the food industry.

We’re here to help food companies and organizations navigate this dynamic space with insight and integrity. Whether you’re refining your product strategy or reevaluating communication around processing, our team can help you build trust and drive impact. Let's connect!