Why UPFs are causing a headache for food brands

‘Ultra processed food linked to higher risk of early death’, ‘Ultra processed foods are killing us – like smoking did in the 1950s’, ‘Food industry has ‘got away with murder’ on UPFs, claims Lord’s inquiry chair’ are just a few of the headlines about UPFs in the last week alone.

Yet despite UPFs dominating the conversation in grocery, food brands and the wider industry have been notably absent from the debate, and it’s leading to a one-sided conversation when it comes to these foods and how ‘bad’ they really are.

One reason for this is that, until early last year, the term UPF was little used and little known by consumers. Instead, the food debate in media and government was focused on foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS).

However, with the rules around food and drinks that are high in fat, salt and sugar being watered down, and the publication of Dr Chris van Tulleken’s book Ultra Processed People last April, UPFs are now firmly part of the government debate and consumer consciousness. There has been a fourfold increase in parliamentary interest in UPFs last year following the book’s publication, and recent polling suggests that the majority of UK consumers now believe UPFs are bad for their health and should be avoided.

It means that brands, in just 12 short months, now face a landscape where the focus has shifted from foods which have high levels of salt, fat and sugar, to an attack on all foods that are produced at scale. And that should set alarm bells ringing.

The main reason that UPFs are causing such a headache for brands is that nobody, even the people at the centre of the debate, can really seem to decide what they are. Is it the number of ingredients? How many ingredients are on pack that you wouldn’t find in your kitchen cupboard at home?

The most commonly used classification system, Nova, puts food into four categories, based on the number of preparation processes it goes through from raw ingredients. However, even this system isn’t perfect, and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has raised questions over the system and has called for more studies to investigate the link between UPFs and diet related diseases more thoroughly.

It means that consumers are increasingly confused about what UPFs are – they just know the media is telling them they should be avoided. And that can cause problems for brands when food such as yoghurt, cereal, bread and ham often end up in the same category as crisps, pizza and ice cream, depending on how you classify a UPF.

Throughout this debate the food industry has been staggeringly absent. On the one hand this is understandable, with the UPF question being a tricky topic to navigate when the evidence on the ‘risk’ of these foods and what they actually are, is still developing. However, at the same time, this silence has created a vacuum which has led to a one-sided debate that demonises the majority of foods created through large-scale food production.

So, what does the industry need to do? Firstly, it’s important for industry bodies to start to have a voice in this debate, whether that’s engaging with government or putting out their own responses to this developing conversation. There are signs this is starting to happen, with the British Sandwich & Food to Go Association and the Café Life Association recently submitting evidence to an ongoing House of Lords inquiry into the impact of UPF and HFSS foods, saying “The demonisation of large-scale food production is completely wrong as there is no evidence to suggest that the processes themselves are in any way damaging to the health of the nation.”

Secondly, brands need to get clear on their messaging, and where they stand in this debate. This could include busting some of the myths around food production to help consumers navigate this tricky landscape. For example, how preservatives and vitamins are sometimes added food to make them safer or more nutritious, or how similar many of the ingredients and processes used in factories can be to those that we use at home, but on a larger scale.

It’s also about acknowledging that modern food production can have its benefits, offering consumers access to food that is more affordable and convenient, and that doesn’t always mean that it’s unhealthier.

There is no doubt that debate and conversation is needed around how we feed ourselves and the role that companies have to play in the health of consumers. But is it as simple as all food manufacturers creating products that are bad for your health? I don’t think so – but it’s time for the food industry and brands to start communicating that and adding their voice to the conversation.