The start of the year has brought renewed focus to the ongoing debate about healthy eating and specifically, the role of ultra-processed foods (UPF). As this discussion gains momentum, let’s break down what UPFs are and the key components behind the debate.

What are Ultra-processed foods? 

The NOVA Food Classification system, developed by Carlos Augusto Monteiro in 2010, is a commonly used framework to classify food based on their level of processing:

-              Group 1: unprocessed (or natural parts) and minimally processed foods. Includes fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, and eggs. 

-              Group 2: processed culinary ingredients derived from group 1 foods; prepared, seasoned and cooked. Examples are vegetable oils, butter, sugar, salt. 

-              Group 3: processed foods, which involve adding ingredients like sugar, salt or oil to group 1 foods to enhance the taste or extend shelf life. One could think of canned vegetables, salted nuts, fruits preserved in syrup. 

-              Group 4: ultra-processed foods, defined as “formulations or ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology”. Products include ready-to-eat meals, packaged snacks, and sweetened beverages. 

Why the debate? 

Ultra-processed foods are popular due to their affordability, accessibility, and convenience. Research shows that in the U.S., more than 50% of daily calorie intake comes from UPFs. Using the NOVA classification, prepared mails, ready-to-heat products and similar convenience products often fall into this category.  

However, critics raise concerns about the nutritional profile of UPFs, which frequently contain higher levels of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars and lower content of protein, fibers and other micronutrients. One of Monteiro’s main critiques is that UPF’s can encourage overeating, potentially contributing to obesity and other health issues. Studies have also linked higher consumption of UPF’s to increased risks of mortality and chronic diseases. 

But there’s definitely more than one way to look at UPFs. In fact, research shows that some products that classify as UPF are nutrient dense. For example, yogurt with added sugar is a valuable source for calcium and potassium. Similarly, packaged whole grain bread contains valuable nutrients despite being considered a UPF. 

A 2023 study by the USDA Agricultural Research Services (ARS) demonstrated that a healthy diet can be composed with a high amount of UPFs. Using the NOVA classification and the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), the researchers created a dietary pattern where over 80% of calories derived from UPFs -yet it scored 86 out of 100 on the HEI index, indicating a nutritious diet. 

Why does it matter?  

Recent regulatory actions have reignited interests in this topic. For instance, the FDA has announced updates to its guidelines on what constitutes ‘healthy’ foods. Further, the state of California has issued an executive order to investigate UPFs further. These developments reflect a growing emphasis on health and nutrition in policy making and public discourse.

At CFBN, we’ve identified health, nutrition and food policies as a key trend shaping 2025. Our aim is to provide updates and insights into this evolving conversation. We’ll explore this topic further, along with other key trends, during our upcoming events and content. 

What do you think? How should industry react to UPFs?