Processing occurs throughout the food production system to varying degrees and with varying levels of intensity.
One of the most commonly cited models used to differentiate products based on the level of processing is the Nova classification, a framework developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo.
The Nova system separates foods into four categories: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods (UPFs). The fact that some level of processing takes place at all four stages of this framework shows just how common and broad the concept is.
As a spokesperson for the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) put it: “Almost all the food we consume is processed to some degree, whether in a factory or at home. This can be as simple as chopping, freezing, heating, fermenting or adding functional ingredients like additives to preserve and increase the shelf life of products.”
Amy Williams, nutrition lead at nonprofit the Good Food Institute (GFI) Europe, agreed that processing, in the abstract, plays an important role within the food industry.
“The term processing is incredibly broad and covers a wide range of techniques used by the industry to make food safer, cheaper or tastier,” she said.
Dr Paul Sheldrake, application and technical director at ingredients supplier Healy Group, further echoed with this assessment and told Food Manufacture that without processing “we would not be able to get good quality and safe to eat foods on our table”.
“[However], the word processing encompasses such a broad remit that it is important to understand what this means for the products and then how it impacts them.”
This remit includes the use of technology, robotics, agronomy and advanced machinery on the farm, long before agricultural goods are processed in food factories.
“The area that most consumers associate with processing relate to transforming these materials into more convenient and finished food products that we see on the shelves in our stores or food outlets,” Sheldrake added.
The processing debate
Everyone interviewed for this article acknowledged that processing is an integral part of food production. However, there is less agreement on the question of how much processing should take place and whether efforts should be made by policymakers and the industry to reduce its role.
Group 4 of the Nova classification in particular – ultra-processed – has been the subject of much debate within the food and drink industry. As the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has noted, while higher levels of food processing has correlated with negative health outcomes in several studies “we still don’t know whether it is because these foods are unhealthy because of how they are made, or if it’s because a large majority of processed foods are high in calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar”.
Elin Roberts, co-founder of tempeh manufacturer Better Nature, argued that the level of processing used during the creation of UPFs is an issue that needs to be addressed.
“Food is changed from its original form almost entirely with the aim of minimising costs and maximising outputs, with little concern for its impact on human health,” she said.
“Large-scale studies have shown that people who eat the most UPFs have a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, depression, and heart disease, so reducing ultra-processing levels should certainly have a positive impact.”
A similar point was made by Katie Dalrymple, lecturer in nutritional sciences at King’s College London, who said that reducing processing levels could positively impact health outcomes as it “may encourage a shift away from highly processed or ultra-processed foods”.
“However, it’s important to note that not all ultra-processed foods are bad for us,” Dalrymple continued.
“The focus should be on reducing the consumption of those high in sugar, unhealthy fats, and salt.”
Sheldrake, on the other hand, does not support a move to reducing processing levels: “Processing is critical to make things and thus, perhaps, the real question to be addressed is more to do with the nutritional quality and functionality of the food rather than just how it has been processed? With such a wide range of food and drink products, there is a plenitude of processing methods used to manufacture this diversity which we would otherwise not be able to consume.”
Meanwhile, Nourish Foods CEO James Petrie told Food Manufacture that the debate about reducing processing levels requires more “nuance” and called for the use of intelligent processes and technology.
“It’s not about less or more processing – it’s about smarter processing that respects natural food structures while improving efficiency and sustainability,” he contended.
“We’re inspired by nature’s blueprint and use controlled processes that enhance the nutritional and taste qualities of our products. Our approach combines deep tech science with traditional food systems to create specialty fats that match nature’s complexity.”
Similar arguments to these have been made by various figures within the food sector, government and the media. However, as Professor Alex Johnstone, theme lead for nutrition, obesity and disease at the Rowett Institute at University of Aberdeen, told Food Manufacture, more data is needed before a concrete ruling on UPFs can be delivered.
“Based on the balance of current evidence, we do not believe it is appropriate to be advising consumers to avoid all UPFs and we await further evidence to inform consumer guidance on the need to limit consumption of specifics foods based on their degree or type of processing,” Johnstone said.
“We need to highlight that we should be moving towards healthier diets, to reduce energy density, fat, sugar and salt in the diet; it is not clear if it is processing per se, or the composition of the diet that impacts on health.”
And Dr Hilda Mulrooney, reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, called for both processing and nutritional content to be factored into the creation of public health advice: “In general, using food processing techniques to preserve food for longer is less problematic than producing foods which contain a range of non-natural ingredients – those are the foods that researchers are concerned about.
“Focusing on whole foods as much as possible would align better with healthy eating recommendations.”
A recent review by the UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) was cited by the FDF, which concluded that evidence suggesting that processing has an impact on our health was “weak”.
“Rather than demonising processing, the best way to have a positive impact on health is to focus on helping people meet the nutrition based dietary guidelines,” said the FDF spokesperson.
“Our members’ focus is on how to make healthier products, using the government’s nutrient profile model as their guide, as well as offering smaller portion sizes. To do this, investment is critical to ensure we create healthier food and drink choices for consumers – whether that be R&D to develop new products that are lower in fat, salt and sugar, or in the machinery itself to adapt to new formulas or serving sizes.”
GFI Europe offered a similar perspective. “Reducing levels of salt, fat and sugar and increasing fibre would make most food products generally healthier, but this is less black and white than other processes, and some public health experts are increasingly concerned that focusing too strongly on processing levels could actually worsen people’s diets,” said Williams.
She explained that fortification, a type of processing, is used to make nutrients more accessible, particularly for people “who can’t afford to regularly buy fresh food or don’t have the time or know-how to prepare healthy meals”.
“In these instances, less processing could actually have a negative impact on health. The plant-based food sector is increasingly exploring opportunities to fortify products with key nutrients like B12, iron and omega-3, which are often missing in many people’s diets.”
New measures needed
Further scientific investigation will provide a fuller picture of UPFs and the wider connection between processing levels and health outcomes. As part of this on-going process, many have called for the Nova system to be updated to include nutritional context.
Speaking with Dr Nerys Astbury, associate professor for diet and obesity at the University of Oxford, she said that further research into the accuracy and ability of Nova to determine differences in foods by level of processing is needed.
“Foods that are highly or ultra processed tend to be higher in energy, more palatable and have more sugar, fat and salt than less processed foods, and this may contribute to some of the observed effects seen,” Astbury added.
She pointed to an over-reliance on Nova, saying it “identifies foods solely on their level of food processing and not by their nutritional value”.
“There is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater – all food processing is not bad,” Mulrooney concluded.
Williams shared similar thoughts, explaining that the Nova classification was developed as a sociological rather than a nutritional tool, and therefore has treated “diverse groups of foods in the same way”.
“This is not helpful to consumers trying to find the healthiest ways of feeding their families,” she continued.
“For example, canned chickpeas fall in the same category as bacon (Nova 3), and plant-based meat in the same group as energy drinks (Nova 4) despite these foods having almost nothing in common from a nutritional point of view.
“Plant-based meat is one of the categories consumers most commonly associate with ultra-processed foods. However, there is compelling evidence that replacing processed conventional meat (Nova 3) with plant-based meat (Nova 4) will benefit health because its nutritional composition is far more important than processing levels in determining health.”
What’s next?
While the debate over whether processing levels directly contribute to negative health outcomes will continue, it is indisputable that people need to be offered better access to healthier and more affordable food.
According to the UK Government statistics collected between 2022 and 2023, 64% of adults aged 18 years and over in England were estimated to be overweight or living with obesity. Meanwhile, 31% of adults reported eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.
Furthermore, prevalence of overweight and obesity is highest in those living in the most deprived areas and lowest among people living in the least deprived areas.
With this in mind, Dalrymple said that efforts by politicians and the F&B industry to produce healthier food much take into account affordability.
“UPFs are often cheaper and more accessible, particularly for low-income communities, compared to healthier alternatives,” Dalrymple explained.
“Any policy aimed at reducing the consumption of these foods must ensure that affordable and nutritious alternatives are available. Otherwise, there’s a significant risk of further disadvantaging those from low-income communities.”
Roberts also cautioned against demonising UPFs because they are often cheaper than their less processes counterparts.
“We just need to reduce our reliance on UPFs, as they currently account for a huge 60% of the food we eat,” she suggested.
“Poverty and inequality also play a huge role in this debate – we can advise consumers what to eat, but if they can’t afford the less processed, natural options, that’s a problem. I don’t believe the answer is to put downward pressure on small businesses, as that’s unsustainable. It should be a basic human right to have access to healthy food, and as a country we have a collective responsibility to make that a reality.”
Asked about the policy approach she would favour, Dalrymple said: “Stronger regulations on marketing of unhealthy foods to infants and children, improving access to healthy foods as well as looking at the early years and primary school food settings are key to ensuring that future generations are getting the best start in life.”
Mulrooney also supported a multi-strategy movement to reduce obesity levels and improve public health.
“I think all possible levers should be used including prices, placement and promotions,” Mulrooney said.
“My personal view is there is room for a ‘polluter pays’ approach, recognised in the prices of those foods rich in fats, salt and sugars which are contributing to ill health, including obesity. Action taken needs to be mandatory so that there is a level playing field for businesses – voluntary approaches have been shown to have minimal effect.
“I think we have to be honest about the fact that food businesses are exactly that - they have to make a profit to survive. That does not always align with health priorities. Businesses can be very much part of the solution, but they are undoubtedly part of the problem and cannot be unbiased. For that reason, I do not think businesses should have a role on deciding or influencing food policy.”
The FDF spokesperson called for a shift in focus onto reducing the availability of foods high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) and argued that the existing focus on processing leaves out the importance of a product’s nutrient content.
“The current debate does not talk about nutrients even though the scientific evidence for the impact of nutrition on our health is much stronger, than the evidence on processing,” the spokesperson said.
“There can also be a lack of clarity, with processing and HFSS often used interchangeably. This can be very confusing for people trying to make healthier choices. We know that that eating fewer foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar alongside increasing fibre, fruit and vegetables, will have a positive impact on health. We believe that helping people achieve this should remain a companies’ priority when they think about the foods they produce.”
Meanwhile, Sheldrake called for action informed by fully independent scientific evaluations at all levels of society.
“[Achieving] this is no mean feat but substantiated results give the real ability to be able to take the right actions,” he said.
“From these facts we can then take action. This can start with education and teaching people about healthy diets and showing them how they can adopt and achieve a much better lifestyle through to how countries and governments go about creating the right overall environment that allows us more easily to have the ability (and many will argue affordability) to be able to eat the right diet.”
Meaningful results are often difficult to deliver, but the figures above show that a problem exists. In time data can determine what role processing plays in these negative outcomes, but what is already clear is that, as a society, we consume too much unhealthy food. A solution needs to be found soon.
