Ultra processed foods aren’t ‘silver bullet’ to obesity crisis

The term ‘ultra processed food’ emerged in the 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2007 when the first classification system came into play – a method developed by the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.

Today, the most commonly used system is NOVA, which was proposed by scientists in Brazil in 2009 and further developed in 2015, coinciding with increasing chatter around the ‘clean label’ concept.

More recently, the phrase ‘ultra processed foods’ has stolen the limelight, as the UK’s health and obesity crisis has worsened.

“Part of the reason you’ve got such a vigorous debate in the UK is because of that underlying problem that, collectively, we need to find a better solution,”​ Karen Betts, chief executive of the Food & Drink Federation (FDF) told Food Manufacture. “It’s not ok that two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese, and we bear some responsibility for that problem.”​

But, as Betts explained, the research which links the intensity of processing to poor health outcomes is, at least so far, “observational and relatively weak”.​

She added that the FDF has looked “long and hard at UPF” ​but does not believe it to be the “silver bullet to poor diets and obesity”.​

Unintended consequences of UPF

In fact, the FDF is concerned that it’s actually making everything much more confusing than it needs to be.

“We're concerned that the vague, wide variety of foods that are drawn into a UPF classification actually undermines what is very clear government dietary guidance about what people should and shouldn't be eating,”​ Betts continued.

For example, based on the NOVA system, shop-bought wholemeal bread, baked beans and wholegrain breakfast cereals such as bran flakes are all ultra processed. But some of these foods make a positive contribution to our nutrient intakes.

Moreover, several of ingredients being demonised under the UPF banner, including additives and emulsifiers, also play important roles in our food.

“If you want a low-fat mayo and you don’t want it to split, you will put an emulsifier into it,” ​offered Kate Halliwell, chief scientific officer at the FDF. “Of course, more broadly, additives have other roles, things like shelf life.”​

As Halliwell went onto say, the consequences of removing such things would need to be carefully communicated to the consumer who may wonder why a product that so often lasts several weeks now lasts days.

“Actually that presents quite a food safety risk and we would need to re-educate people. And, of course, it means food waste would go up as well because the food doesn’t last as long.”​

“The debate on additives really worries me,” ​added Betts. “They are rigorously tested and highly regulated; they are in products for a reason. They're not mystery ingredients. We need to stand up for that system – and the government did a very good job of that, but I suspect most people didn’t read the evidence. ​

“Most people who are in the supermarket, trying to decide what to buy, haven’t researched it in that level of detail. It’s important that busy families are not feeling anxious or stressed as they stand in the supermarket aisle, trying to make choices.” ​

It’s not just consumers who are having a tough time understanding ultra processed foods though. As there is no clear-cut definition of UPFs, classification is somewhat subjective. For example, one French-based study, which asked food and nutrition specialists to assign foods by the NOVA scale, found that consistent assignment was low overall, even when ingredient information was provided.  

HFSS doesn’t always mean ultra processed

The debate has also been intertwined with on-going discussions over HFSS (high in fat, salt and sugar) as some UPFs do come under this umbrella.

As the Food Standards Agency website puts it: “It’s hard to establish whether this is the sole reason why consuming lots of them can lead to poorer health, or whether there are additional negative health impacts from other factors.”​

However, it’s important to note that not all UPFs are HFSS – but the association between the two have blurred lines, meaning they have, in some cases, been used interchangeably.

“They're absolutely not the same thing,”​ confirmed Halliwell.  

In basic terms, UPFs are determined by the level of processing a product has undergone which includes the types of ingredients added in, whereas HFSS is driven by nutrition and backed by decades of science.  

Regardless, confusion, and thus amalgamation of the two terms, has led some manufacturers to review their reformulation programmes.

“They worry people will move away from products that have sweeteners and emulsifiers in…” ​Betts explained, adding sardonically, “[but] does that mean we should put the sugar or fat back in?”​

The short answer is no – not unless some incredibly damning evidence comes in. 

She continued: “It's a proliferation of conflicting information and I would say the industry is pretty clear that the UPF debate is not helpful on a number of different levels.”​

What is the food sector’s role in addressing obesity?

Still, both Betts and Halliwell agreed that the conversation on UPFs isn’t something which can be ignored and acknowledged that the food sector does have a role to play in addressing the obesity crisis.

Although, as Betts pointed out, it’s not going to be solved alone or through “ill-defined systems”. ​

“It will depend on everyone working together,”​ she contended, adding that a considered approach must be taken.

“If you’re going to tackle it, you need to move to the ‘out of home’ space as well. You can’t just rely on the packaged food industry taking those steps, it has to go broader than that. We need to look holistically at what people are eating and where they're eating those things from.​

“We do have to be quite careful about how we talk about education or health services or other things that are, undeniably, a factor in all of this, because in the past I think the food industry has been criticised for pointing the solutions too much at others.”​

“And that is absolutely not what we're trying to do. We know that we have a really important role to play.”​

So while the food sector does paint one part of the picture, bringing that section together won’t be easy given the size of the sector, never mind its siloed nature.

Government action

“There is a role for government here,”​ Halliwell suggested. “They can play an almost convening role, getting everyone in the room, getting ideas on the table, and setting a strategic direction.​

“Now, we might disagree further down the line about the way of getting to that [healthier food outcome], but I think that strategic direction is quite important because then people can row in behind that and work through what it means for them.” ​

Labour has been vocal on its stance around extending HFSS for some time; and now, in power, it has promised to do just that. This will come in the form of restricting the advertising of ‘junk food’ to children and placing a ban on highly caffeinated drinks for under 16s. What is not yet known is how the new Government will pick up the UPF debate.

Commenting on the announcements made in the Kings Speech last week, Betts said: “They’re [Labour] doing things that were, to a degree, on the books, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t come with a broader approach…and they may well pick up on some of the work that Henry Dimbleby did.”​

For the FDF, it’s important that the association is in that conversation – and that that conversation is ongoing.

“We've got a lot to bring to that conversation,” ​Betts stated. “As I said, it really is only going to work if all the different players in this space can collaborate. ​

“We’re open-minded about having a conversation with Wes Streeting [the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care] and his health team to take that forward.”​

On ultra processed foods, Halliwell added: “It's really helpful that government is continuing to monitor the science.​

“Science does evolve, so it's right that the Government continues to watch it, to monitor it, so that we always know that we are working to the latest evidence.​

“There has been quite a lot of observational studies [on UPF] [and] we shouldn't dismiss that completely. [But] we have to make sure that we look at the science, the totality of that and how strong or weak that is is really important.”​

Although monitoring the science is crucial, Betts said there are other ways government could help aid healthier food and help ease the transition to scaling up HFSS without harming businesses.

“One of the things that we're looking at closely is the amount of investment that goes into reformulation and how prohibitive, frankly, the costs are for smaller businesses. Many of them, can't really get into the science of changing their recipes, to whatever they might need to do to reduce fat, salt and sugar or add in fibre, fruit and vegetables, because they can’t afford it.”​

The FDF is currently investigating how much investment goes into reformulation, but the association estimates it’s about 50%. Although most big F&B manufacturers can absorb the cost, small manufacturers, which make up most of the industry, can’t.

Putting this further into perspective, Betts cited ONS figures on how much investment has been injected into food vs other sectors: “In 2022, the Government contributed £3m to the food industry's R&D investment. In that same year, they contributed £38m to automotive R&D and £322m to aerospace R&D. ​

“It gives you a bit of a feel for how we're told to go and do things, but then we're sort of left just to get on with it ourselves.” ​

As Betts pointed out, if there are concerns over diet-related illnesses and debates ongoing that could potentially bring in drastic changes to food manufacturing, proper investment is needed to support that change.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like our feature on how food colourings trends are being influenced by clean label.​​