UPF debate not black and white
Ultra-processed foods have received a barrage of bad press, the most notable being the World Health Organization’s (WHO) June report, which likened their consumption to smoking and drinking alcohol.
But, while health and environmental research is increasingly damning, the debate has so-far failed to consider the important reasons behind the use of ultra-processing methods.
What are the benefits of UPF?
Ultra-processed foods offer significant financial benefits to manufacturers, retailers, and ultimately consumers. In particular, ultra-processed foods have a longer shelf life than fresh foods, meaning they can be produced in bulk and stored for long periods of time without spoiling.
“Processing methods can increase the safety and the longevity of the food, leading to longer shelf life,” Anna Rosales, senior director of government affairs and nutrition at the Institute of Food Technologists, told FoodNavigator.
And this is becoming increasingly important to consumers, with research, conducted by food manufacturer Kerry Group, finding that foods with longer shelf-lives are taking priority with shoppers.
“More than a third of consumers will switch to brands or products with a longer shelf life,” said a spokesperson for Kerry Group.
In response to this, some who are opposed to ultra-processing methods have put the argument forward that there are foods, such as pulses, which are healthy, high in fibre, and have a long shelf life. And while this is true, it fails to take into account the fact that many people are time poor and so simply do not have the time or energy to prepare meals from scratch.
“Processing makes foods more convenient for the consumer with many processed foods being ready-to-eat or needing minimal preparation,” says Rosales.
It’s also time to challenge the narrative that all UPF are 'bad' for health.
“The level of processing our food and drink undergoes does not determine the nutritional content of the final product,” said a FoodDrinkEurope spokesperson.
In fact, even people who are against the ultra-processing of foods, concede that the NOVA classification is a flawed system in need of reform.
“The NOVA classification should focus more on nutrition and differentiate between the different types of food processing,” said Puk Maia Holm-Sondergaard, chief consultant at the Department for Nutrition, Agriculture & Food, Denmark, speaking at an event exploring UPF at the Danish Embassy in London. “We need a more holistic approach to this. When we look at a NOVA-type classification it should measure all the elements - corporate social responsibility, nutrition, sustainability and so on.”
And though we’re aware of the negative health impacts, associated with UPF, there are also some health benefits to be considered.
“In some cases, processed foods might be enriched or fortified with nutrients,” says Institute of Food Technologists’ Rosales.
However, whether these additional nutrients outweigh the negatives of UPF, is uncertain. Some ultra-processing methods can remove nutrients from foods, meaning fortification could simply be replacing what has been taken away.
Have ultra-processed foods been unfairly demonised?
The debate over ultra-processed foods remains contentious, with strong feelings and opinions on both sides. But the negative arguments are definitely getting more attention from consumers, while potential positive health impacts are being overlooked.
“Earlier this year, the world's largest review of health studies directly linked UPFs to 32 harmful health conditions, including cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, poor mental health, and early death,” Dr Marlana Malerich, a sustainable food systems researcher at the University of Sussex, told FoodNavigator. “However, within that study, the authors noted that while some UPFs were linked to ill health, others such as cereals, dark or wholegrain bread, packaged sweet and savoury snacks, fruit-based products, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts, were linked to better health outcomes. Processing did not always equate to poor health outcomes.”
This highlights a need for better consumer education, when it comes to processed and ultra-processed foods.
“Better educating consumers on processing technologies, ingredients, and the benefits they offer, from taste to shelf life, is essential,” says Institute of Food Technologists’ Rosales. “By doing so, we can empower consumers with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions that are best for them. Providing information and education can help consumers feel confident in their food choices and build trust in the food system.
But it’s not just consumers struggling to understand the UPF debate. Industry is struggling too.
“There is so much confusion around ultra-processed foods,” says Rosales. “But that’s because there is so much that is still unknown, even throughout the scientific community. Yes, there is data available, but it lacks scientific consensus, and the research sample size is far too small. More funding is required for the critical additional research that is required to better understand ultra-processed foods and their true impact on health and nutrition.”
Is a food system without ultra-processing a realistic goal?
The answer to this question is undoubtedly, no. Ultra-processing is entrenched within the food system and, as the global population continues to rise, the food safety, shelf life, and affordability it provides is indispensable.
However, there are food companies emerging, which are managing to produce foods which are both ready-to-eat and minimally processed. Brands such as Danish start-up, Perfect Season, which was founded on the ethos of creating plant-based foods without ultra-processing. But this approach does create challenges, particularly with regards to consistency.
“We make our products from vegetables, lentils and spices which vary according to the supplier,” says Henrik Christensen, co-founder of Perfect Season. “Our biggest challenge as a manufacturer is making a consistent quality product every time we produce.”
This, in itself, proves the difficulties faced by food manufacturers attempting to reduce the processing methods used in their production systems.
The debate continues...
