Read time: 5 minutes
Highlights
The UPF label is too blunt to tell the full nutritional story.
- The Blunt Truth. The UPF label has become a blunt instrument that often misses the real nutritional picture.
- The Evidence Gap. SACN and The Lancet show that not all UPFs are created equal.
- Unfairly Tarred. Plant-based staples like tofu, hummus, and fortified milks are nutritional powerhouses unfairly caught in the UPF net.
- The Real Culprit. The real health concern is often HFSS, high levels of salt, sugar, and fat, which can appear in both processed and so-called "natural" foods.
- Matrix Over Method. The food matrix and nutrient profile matter far more than processing alone.
- Strategy Over Panic. Food businesses need evidence-based strategy, not fear-driven thinking.
Is the "Ultra-Processed Food" label actually helping us, or is it just the latest monster under the bed?
I’ve been watching the UPF debate closely for years, and lately, it feels like the volume has been turned up to eleven! Everywhere you look, from tabloid headlines to social media influencers, UPFs are being blamed for everything from the obesity crisis to the end of civilisation as we know it. But as a food futurist, I have to ask… where's the problem?
What we're missing is a massive amount of nuance. We’ve taken a complex scientific classification system and turned it into a weapon. We’re using a "blunt" tool, a blunt instrument, to judge our entire food system, and in the process, we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
I was absolutely delighted to see some recent scientific "nails in the coffin" of this oversimplified UPF propaganda. It’s time we move beyond the panic and start looking at what the data actually tells us. Just think about this for a minute; how can a fortified wholegrain cereal and a sugary fizzy drink be in the same category? It’s madness!
The Blunt Instrument of NOVA
The NOVA classification system, which gave us the UPF label, was never meant to be a perfect guide for individual health. It was designed to look at dietary patterns. But now, it’s being used to demonise specific foods that are actually doing a lot of nutritional heavy lifting.
Take tofu, hummus, and fortified plant-based milks. These are staples for millions of people. They deliver protein, fibre, calcium, B12, iodine, or other key nutrients depending on the product. Yet because of how they are formulated or manufactured, they are often unfairly tarred with the "ultra-processed" tag.
My biggest concern is that we are lumping nutritional powerhouses into the same bucket as products with very poor dietary value. Tofu is a fantastic source of plant protein. Hummus can bring legumes, tahini, fibre, and healthy fats into the diet. Fortified soy or oat milks can play an important role where dairy isn’t preferred or tolerated. These foods are not dietary villains… they are often smart, practical, affordable staples.
When we label everything from sugary soft drinks to fortified milks as "UPF," we lose all ability to distinguish between what is genuinely harmful and what is actually helping people eat better. I’ve spoken about this before; consumers are being given a far too simplistic message.
The Evidence is Changing (and Fast!)
We’ve recently seen some major scientific milestones that support a more nuanced view. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) position statement was a significant moment. They acknowledged that while there are associations between high UPF intake and poor health, nearly all the evidence is observational.
And that matters! Because it means we still have to ask the obvious question… is the issue really the processing, or is it the nutritional composition of many foods inside that category?
There's major heterogeneity across UPF subgroups. In plain English, not all foods inside the category behave the same way. Some plant-based alternatives and certain breads are associated with better outcomes when replacing less healthy choices.
That is why I keep saying the nutrient profile and the food matrix matter far more than a headline label.
HFSS is Often the Real Problem
Here’s the section I think gets missed far too often. The real health culprits are frequently HFSS foods, products high in fat, sugar, and salt. And importantly, HFSS can show up in both processed and so-called "natural" foods.
A soft drink loaded with sugar is a problem. Deep-fried takeaway with excessive salt is a problem. Oversized muffins, indulgent snack bars, and confectionery marketed as "natural" can also be a problem. Even foods with a health halo can still deliver too much sugar, sodium, or saturated fat if you look closely enough.
So no, processing alone is not the smoking gun. If a food is high in fibre, rich in protein, sensibly fortified, and moderate in sodium, sugar, and saturated fat, I’m far more interested in that nutritional reality than whether it has been through an industrial process. On the flip side, a minimally processed food can still be an unhealthy choice if it is loaded with HFSS attributes.
This is where the conversation needs to grow up. We should be targeting poor nutritional quality, not assuming that "processed" automatically means "bad" and "natural" automatically means "good".
Why the "Food Matrix" Still Matters
Let’s talk about the food matrix for a second. This is the physical structure of your food; how the fats, proteins, and fibres are bound together.
A recent review in the journal Science argued that the key health determinants aren't the number of ingredients or the level of processing, but the matrix itself. If you take a whole grain and strip it of its fibre to make a refined snack, you’ve damaged the matrix. But if you use modern technology to fortify a milk alternative or create a stable, nutritious plant protein, you are using processing to enhance the food’s value.
This is where the future of food gets exciting! We are moving into an era where we can design foods with precision. I’m talking about technologies that will dominate the future of food for decades, like precision fermentation and advanced genomics. These tools can help us create high-quality nutrition that is healthier, more sustainable, and more accessible.
What This Means for the Future
As a futurist, I help organisations navigate these shifting sands. If you are a leader in food or beverage, your strategy cannot be based on a simplistic anti-UPF narrative. That is a recipe for stagnation!
Instead, I believe the focus should be on the following areas.
- Evidence-Based Product Design; Prioritise fibre, protein, micronutrients, and sensible HFSS thresholds.
- Radical Transparency; Use digital tools to show consumers what’s in the food and why it has been processed that way.
- Smarter Communication; Defend nutritious staples like tofu, hummus, and fortified milks with facts, not fear.
- Future Foresight; Don’t just react to today’s headlines. Look at where the science is heading over the next 5 to 10 years.
The "UPF" label as we know it is unlikely to remain the final word. More sophisticated metrics will emerge, and they should! The winners will be the organisations that embrace nuance, improve nutritional quality, and stop treating processing as the enemy.
It’s an amazing time to be in the food industry! We have the tools to solve some of the world’s biggest health and sustainability challenges, but only if we use them wisely.
Let’s stop the panic. Let’s focus on HFSS where it matters. And let’s make nuance our new superfood!
To continue the conversation email me at tony@futuristforfood.com
