UPF was the term of 2024 as consumers grew sceptical of certain foods due mostly to media demonisation.
The rhetoric died down in the early days of 2025, but the backlash against this amorphous category has quickly gained traction with numerous reports and critics hitting out again.
It remains difficult to gain consensus on what an ultra-processed food is, whether they’re all bad and if certain segments are being over criticised.
Some UPFs criticised more than others
Some argue various UPFs face more criticism than others, such as plant-based and meat alternatives. Especially when it comes to comparing sausages with, well, plant-based sausages according to Alex Robinson of environmental charity Hubbub.
A paper in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine this month also suggested mortality rates were higher for thousands of people globally because of UPFs. Though the research was later criticised for being “observational”.
All this negativity is leading to rising levels of concern among consumers who, according to a recent study, would like to see more regulation around UPFs. This, however, claims think-tank Nesta, is unlikely to happen.
Who is defending UPFs?
Though it’s not all bad for UPFs, despite few in the industry wading into the debate to define, defend and discredit arguments, there is work being done to tackle ‘scaremongering’.
Health app Zoe announced it was launching its own UPF scale to help educate consumers on the UPFs that are, simply, healthy or unhealthy.
Unsatisfied with the current NOVA classification system, Zoe’s new Food Risk Scale splits processed food into four categories of: no risk, low risk, moderate risk and high risk.