If you feel like you’re hearing about ultra-processed foods a lot recently, it’s because you are. The conversation around what we eat – and how it’s made – has never been louder. From government reports and scientific studies to viral social media posts, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are under increasing scrutiny for their potential links to obesity, heart disease and even mental health concerns. But while the term ‘ultra-processed’ is often used a catch-all for anything deemed unhealthy, the reality is more complex.
With modern diets heavily reliant on convenience, many of the foods we consume daily – from breakfast cereals and protein bars to plant-based meat alternatives – fall into the UPF category. Yet not all UPFs are created equal and avoiding them altogether isn’t always practical. So, what exactly defines an ultra-processed food? How do they impact our health? And most importantly, what should we be doing about it?
What is a UPF?
While there is no conclusive definition of an ultra-processed food, many people refer to the Nova classification, which splits processing into four groups:
- Raw or minimally processed foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and eggs.
- Culinary ingredients such as plant oils, animal fats, sugar and salt.
- Minimally processed foods such as canned meat, artisanal bread, cheese and wine.
- Ultra-processed foods such as packaged snacks, pre-prepared dishes, canned soups and reconstituted meat products.
Unlike minimally processed foods, which retain much of their original nutritional value, UPFs are industrially formulated, often containing preservatives, emulsifiers, artificial flavourings, and food additives designed to enhance taste and prolong shelf life. Ready-to-eat and highly palatable, they are often created to trigger pleasure responses in the brain, raising concerns about their addictive potential. UPFs have become staples in modern diets due to their convenience, but their widespread consumption contributes to numerous health issues, including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.
The World Health Organization has previously backed the use of the Nova Classification for ultra-processed foods; however, the definition remains contested. Many argue that the classification does not consider the nutritional content of a food product, as items like vegan meat substitutes and flavoured yogurt are categorised as ultra-processed.
Despite the growing awareness, many consumers remain uncertain about what constitutes an ultra-processed food. A study conducted by Savanta ComRes in April 2024 found that 45% of Brits could not define or identify a UPF, and many struggled to distinguish between ultra-processed and minimally processed products. For example, 21% mistakenly believed orange juice was a UPF, leading some to avoid it unnecessarily.
Alarming trends in UPF consumption
Many recent studies have highlighted the growing reliance on UPFs, particularly among children and adolescents. A 2024 study from University College London found that toddlers in the UK obtain 47% of their calories from UPFs, rising to 59% by age seven. Among the most commonly consumer UPFs at 21 months old were flavoured yoghurts and wholegrain breakfast cereals, foods many perceive to be healthy. By seven, however, the most frequent UPFs in children’s diets were sweetened cereals and puddings, reflecting a shift toward more sugary choices as they grow.
Similarly, adolescents in the UK derive nearly two-thirds of their daily calories from UPFs, with consumption highest among those from deprived backgrounds. This finding comes from an analysis of nearly 3,000 food diaries recorded between 2008 and 2019 as part of the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey, in collaboration with the University of Bristol. While the study showed a slight decline in UPF consumption over time—from 68% to 63%—adolescents still consume more of these foods than any other age group. The data also revealed clear socioeconomic and regional disparities. Teenagers from the most deprived backgrounds had the highest UPF intake, averaging 68.4% of their daily calories, compared to 63.8% among those from more affluent households. Differences were also observed by ethnicity and geography, with white adolescents consuming a higher proportion of UPFs (67.3%) than their non-white peers (59%), and teenagers in the north of England eating more than those in the south (67.4% vs. 64.1%). Interestingly, UPF intake decreased slightly with age, with 11-year-olds consuming around 65.6% of their calories from UPFs, compared to 63.4% in 18-year-olds.
Additionally, data from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey reveal that UPFs account for 56.8% of total energy intake among adults and an alarming 74.9% and 82.9% in children and teenagers, respectively. This trend is concerning, as early-life dietary habits often persist into adulthood, increasing the risk of chronic diseases.
Public health warnings and government inaction
The health risks associated with UPFs have not gone unnoticed. In February 2024, during the Lords Select Committee Inquiry into Diet, Health, and Obesity, Professor Tim Spector urged the government to limit UPFs to no more than 10% of the food served in taxpayer-funded institutions, including schools and hospitals. He emphasised the need for children to have access to “real food” rather than meals dominated by ultra-processed options. This call to action followed a December 2023 open letter to the Prime Minister, coordinated by the Soil Association —signed by chefs, restaurateurs, doctors, and campaigners—warned that children’s tastebuds were being “hijacked” by UPFs and urged the government to act on its 2022 “Levelling Up” White Paper commitment to a whole-school approach to healthy eating. Despite these warnings, the government has yet to implement meaningful policies to address the issue.
One of the most pressing concerns is the dominance of UPFs in school meals, where tight budgets and inadequate kitchen facilities make it difficult to prioritise fresh food. Currently, UPFs account for 61% of the energy intake in primary school meals, a figure that experts warn could contribute to rising rates of diet-related illnesses. Experts argue that unless stricter policies are introduced, the next generation will face even higher rates of diet-related illnesses.
Some regulatory bodies are considering taxation on highly processed foods, like sugar taxes already in place. Colombia has implemented the world’s first UPF tax. Introduced in 2023, the tax started at 10% and is set to increase to 20% by 2025. Early data suggest that the policy is having an impact, with a 5% decline in UPF sales by the end of 2023. While the Colombian model does not use the Nova classification to define UPFs, it targets products with high levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fats—an approach that could serve as a blueprint for other nations.
A recent survey conducted by the Health Foundation found that 53% of UK consumer would support a tax on UPF manufacturers, while 62% support a ban on unhealthy food advertisements before 9 p.m. Similar trends are emerging in the EU, where 67% of consumers believe UPFs contribute to obesity and other health issues.
The detrimental impact of UPFs on health has also sparked legal action, with a landmark lawsuit challenging some of the world’s biggest food corporations. In a groundbreaking case, 18-year-old Bryce Martinez from Pennsylvania has taken legal action against major industry players—including Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz International, and several others—alleging that their engineered, highly addictive products contributed to his development of chronic illnesses. Martinez, who was diagnosed with fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes at just 16, claims he consumed “harmful levels” of ultra-processed foods marketed aggressively to children. The lawsuit argues that these companies knowingly designed their products to be as addictive as cigarettes, fuelling a public health crisis in the process.
This case is the first of its kind and could set a significant legal precedent. The 148-page complaint, filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, accuses the companies of conspiracy, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices. It draws attention to the long-term health consequences of UPF consumption, pointing out that conditions like fatty liver disease were virtually unheard of in children before the widespread availability of these products. If successful, the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications, potentially leading to stricter regulations on how ultra-processed foods are formulated, marketed, and sold. It may also open the door for further legal challenges, increasing pressure on the food industry to reform its practices and prompting governments to take a tougher stance on the role of UPFs in public health.
Rethinking our diets
To reduce dependence on UPFs, individuals can prioritise whole and minimally processed foods. Natural foods—such as fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, eggs, and dairy—provide essential nutrients without harmful additives. Some processed foods, like bread, cheese, and canned goods, can be part of a healthy diet when made with simple ingredients and minimal artificial modifications.
A shift towards home cooking, using whole ingredients, can also help reduce UPF intake. Additionally, advocating for policy changes—such as improved school meal programs and better food labelling—can promote healthier eating habits on a larger scale.
