Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become villains over the past several years thanks to wide-ranging public campaigns against them. Food journalist Nicholas Robinson explains, “All this negativity is leading to rising levels of concern among consumers who, according to [one] study, would like to see more regulation around UPFs.”[1] As the debate continues to heat up, more clarity on the subject is desperately needed. Robinson observes, “Despite few in the industry wading into the debate to define, defend, and discredit arguments, there is work being done to tackle ‘scaremongering’.” Regulators and scientists alike are struggling to find a definition for UPFs that accounts for the many nuanced ways foods are processed. The staff at American Society for Nutrition explains, “Ultra-processed foods have been linked with increased risk of obesity, heart disease and other chronic health conditions, but researchers say the broad definition of ‘ultra-processed’ — which, for example, places a candy bar in the same category as fortified sugar-free whole grain breakfast cereal — makes it difficult to gauge the health impacts of specific food products.”[2] As a result, reports food journalist Gill Hyslop, “Critics say the real problem isn’t processing — it’s how we’re measuring health. An outdated classification is distorting science and stalling innovation.”[3]

Out With the Old; but What’s the New?

Hyslop observes, “Ultra-processed foods are the center of growing controversy, with dietary guidelines, media reports, and front-of-pack labels urging consumers to avoid them. The most influential classification system behind this movement is NOVA — a four-tier framework that sorts food by their degree of processing rather than their nutritional value.” I argued in a previous article that processed foods should be judged by their nutritional content.[4] In that article, I cited science writer Matt Simon who believes we should chill out and tone down the rhetoric about processed foods. He writes, "It’s time to get real about processed foods. For one, processed doesn’t have to mean unhealthy, and indeed it’s only because of certain processed foods that people around the world get the nutrition they need. Two, processed foods keep better, cutting down on food waste. And three, if we expect to feed a growing population on a planet with finite arable land, we have to engineer new sources of food, protein in particular."[5]

Rebecca Bohlmann, product manager at Planteneers, told Hyslop, “Enrichment, fortification, and functional formulation … are tools of nutritional science. Yet, NOVA penalizes them across the board, even when they deliver clear nutritional benefits.” In a study published last year, researcher Jimmy Chun Yu Louie, an Associate Professor of Dietetics at Swinburne University of Technology, came to the same conclusion as Bohlmann. He wrote, “The role of UPFs in food security, affordability, and environmental sustainability adds further complexity to their evaluation. These products often provide cost-effective sources of essential nutrients for economically disadvantaged populations and can contribute to reduced food waste through extended shelf-life capabilities. Rather than a categorical rejection of all UPFs, the evidence suggests that not all UPFs are inherently ‘bad’. Their health implications depend on various factors, including specific processing methods, nutritional composition, and the context of their consumption within overall dietary patterns.”[6]

Consensus seems to be building that classifying foods by how they are processed rather than by their nutritional content is a bad idea. Nevertheless, creating a new classification system is proving challenging. Hyslop reports, “Around the world, regulators are laying the foundations for something much bigger. Definitions are being drafted, school food standards are changing, litigation is gathering pace, and international health bodies are considering new recommendations. None of those developments has transformed the regulatory landscape on its own. Viewed together, however, they suggest the debate over UPFs is entering a new phase.”[7]

Consumers are Seeking Clarity Around UPFs

A survey conducted by researchers from Purdue University and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign found that consumers are eager to learn more about UPFs.[8] Confounded by the vast amount of contradictory data surrounding UPFs being generated, consumers would like some clarity. The survey asked consumers about their support for information-based policies (defining UPFs and providing dietary recommendations around UPFs); restriction-based policies (UPF restrictions in grocery stores, schools, and food assistance programs); and price-based policy (i.e., taxing UPFs). The survey found the highest support for information-based policies, with the least support for UPF taxation. Lead author of the study, Purdue University professor Brenna Ellison reports, “When we looked across all respondents, people were very, very supportive of information-based policies. They really want that basic information, including definitions and intake recommendations. Without knowing what is or is not a UPF, it’s difficult to know how else they may want these products regulated.”[9]

Both the challenge and the problem is defining UPFs. Food journalist David Feder believes coming up with an acceptable definition of UPFs will prove to be a chimera. He explains, “The dictionary defines a chimera as ‘a thing which is hoped for but is illusory or impossible to achieve.’ Building a political movement around a term that fits that definition will, at best, be fraught with confusion. Yet as we endure yet another year of metastasis of the popular media campaign against ‘ultra-processed foods’, those of us keeping watch on the food industry must deal with this confusion. The core challenge is straightforward: There is still no universally accepted legal or scientific definition of an ultra-processed food. That does not mean nutrition concerns are invalid. Healthful eating is not just important, it’s vital in the literal sense. And there is little debate that some foods undergo significantly more processing than others.”[10]

Despite the lack of clarity surrounding UPFs, consumers are likely to push hard for policymakers to begin regulating processed foods and help them make sense of the current confused situation. In the meantime, food journalist Deniz Ataman argues that CPG companies are trying to find a middle ground in which consumers can feel comfortable. She explains, “Consumers’ intention-behavior gap shows that while shoppers know they should eat healthier foods, convenience and cost drive them to favor processed foods, according to research from International Food Information Council (IFIC).”[11] She asks, “Is there a middle ground where processed foods and healthier options can satisfy nutrition goals, convenience, and cost?” IFIC research shows that consumers opinions about processed foods span a spectrum from healthy to unhealthy depending upon numerous factors, including nutrition value and pairing them with known nutritional foods.

Concluding Thoughts

Hyslop observes that, for the most part, UPF regulations should be based on yet-to-be-determined definitions for processed foods. She explains, “Once definitions exist, regulation becomes considerably easier. … [It means] policymakers suddenly have a common language around which to build future rules.” There’s the rub. Those definitions are likely to prove difficult to create and controversial once they are created. Feder observes, “The leap from ‘processed’ to ‘unhealthy’ remains scientifically tenuous, and increasingly problematic for food manufacturers navigating both consumer expectations and regulatory uncertainty.” At the end of the day, I tend to agree with food journalist Augustus Bambridge-Sutton that UPF debate is nuanced and we should recognize that truth. He writes, “It is easy to boil this debate down into the caricature of it — one the one hand, an evasive and compromised industry using technicalities to defend the indefensible; on the other, a dogmatic band of crusaders using scientifically dubious concepts to hoodwink the public. Unsurprisingly, this is misrepresentative of the truth on both sides. If we want to understand the debate, we must take both arguments seriously.”[12]

Footnotes

[1] Nicholas Robinson, “Why has the attack on UPFs re-intensified?” Food Navigator, 1 May 2025.

[2] American Society for Nutrition, “Scientists propose new approach for classifying processed foods,” EurekAlert! 3 June 2025.

[3] Gill Hyslop, “UPFs: It’s time to focus on what food delivers, not how it’s made,” Food Navigator, 8 July 2025.

[4] Stephen DeAngelis, “Processed Food and the Supply Chain,” Enterra Insights, 27 May 2025.

[5] Matt Simon, "Let's All Just Chill About Processed Foods," Wired, 9 September 2019.

[6] Jimmy Chun Yu Louie, “Are all ultra-processed foods bad? A critical review of the NOVA classification system,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Cambridge University Press, 4 August 2025.

[7] Gill Hyslop, “The coming UPF regulation revolution,” Food Navigator, 7 July 2026.

[8] Brenna Ellison ,Maria Kalaitzandonakes, Karen Byrd, and Bhagyashree Katare, “The politics of processed foods: Consumer perceptions of policies targeting ultra-processed foods,” PLOS One, 1 June 2026.

[9] University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, “Americans hungry for information, policies around ultra-processed foods, study shows,” EurekAlert! 23 June 2026.

[10] David Feder, “An Unreality Pervasive in Food,” Prepared Foods, June 2026.

[11] Deniz Ataman, “Processed foods aren’t going away, but they are evolving,” Food Navigator, 26 May 2026.

[12] Augustus Bambridge-Sutton, “The ultra-processed foods debate has nuance - let’s recognise it,” Food Navigator, 26 February 2026.