The UPF Debate
Why Food Brands Should Pay Attention —Regardless of Who's Right
By now, you've probably heard the term "ultra-processed foods" (UPFs) more times than you can count. The phrase has become a staple of media headlines, public health discussions, and policy proposals. It has also become a lightning rod for debate.
A recent article in The Atlantic challenged whether ultra-processed foods are truly a distinct scientific category or simply a modern rebranding of what previous generations called "junk food." The author raises an important point: despite growing concern over UPFs, there is still no universally accepted definition.
In fact, as one FDA official recently acknowledged, "A definition for ultra-processed foods is really hard."
For food companies, that uncertainty creates a unique challenge.
What Is a UPF, Exactly?
Most discussions of ultra-processed foods trace back to the NOVA classification system, developed by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro and colleagues. NOVA categorizes foods into four groups based on the extent and purpose of processing, with Group 4 representing ultra-processed foods.
The framework has become enormously influential in public health circles and serves as the foundation for much of today's UPF research and policy discussion.
At the same time, critics argue that NOVA often groups together foods with very different nutritional profiles, making it difficult to determine whether processing itself is the concern or whether the issue remains the more familiar combination of sugar, sodium, refined carbohydrates, calories, and dietary patterns.
The result is an active scientific debate—one that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
Why the Debate Matters
As food scientists and industry consultants, we're less interested in taking sides than understanding the practical implications.
Whether UPFs ultimately become a permanent regulatory framework or evolve into something more refined, the conversation is already influencing decision-making.
We're seeing growing attention in:
School meal programs
State-level food policy initiatives
Front-of-package labeling discussions
Public health guidance
Consumer purchasing decisions
In other words, the definition may still be developing, but the market signals are already here.
What the Research Says
The most comprehensive examination of the issue to date may be the recent Lancet series on ultra-processed foods, which argues that UPFs are closely associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic diseases.
Critics, however, point out that much of the evidence remains observational. While associations exist, establishing causation is considerably more difficult. Researchers continue to debate whether industrial processing itself drives health outcomes or whether UPFs simply serve as a proxy for diets high in sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and refined carbohydrates.
Those are important scientific questions—and they deserve rigorous investigation.
The Business Reality
For food brands, the more immediate question is not whether the science is settled.
It's whether customers, regulators, retailers, and institutional buyers are paying attention.
The answer is yes. School systems are exploring restrictions. Policymakers are discussing definitions. Consumers increasingly recognize the term. Media coverage continues to expand.
That means product developers should begin evaluating how their portfolios align with emerging expectations around transparency, formulation, ingredient systems, and consumer perception.
Our Perspective
Food processing itself is not inherently good or bad.
Processing improves food safety, extends shelf life, enhances accessibility, supports affordability, and helps deliver consistent quality at scale. Many processed foods play an important role in modern food systems.
At the same time, consumer expectations are evolving. Brands that understand how their products may be viewed through the UPF lens will be better positioned to respond—regardless of how regulators ultimately define the term.
The debate may continue for years. The need to pay attention is already here.