The big UPF myth: Why consumers say one thing and eat the another

Summary of what consumers really think about UPFs

• Most consumers don’t clearly understand what UPFs are
• Many say they avoid UPFs, but their diets suggest otherwise
• Perceptions vary widely across global markets
• Functional ingredients offer a way to reframe UPFs positively
• Younger consumers are more open to balanced UPF consumption

UPF or ultra-processed food has become the infamous “it” phrase of the 2020s. In a near-synchronous global surge, academics, health experts, politicians as well as those in the food and drink industry have scrambled to define, defend and denounce it. Few topics have stirred such fierce debate, which has crossed borders and disciplines with the speed of a viral social media trend.

Careers have been both forged and fractured by the UPF debate. Most notably Dr Chris van Tulleken, author and passionate UPF critic, as well as the current United States Secretary of health and human services, Robert F Kennedy Junior, who’s made it his mission to raid America’s junk food manufacturers of “unhealthy” ingredients.

But has it been worth it so far? Have consumers come any closer to understanding what a UPF is (whether it’s good or bad)? And how should the food and drink industry move forward now?

In short, consumers worldwide don’t have a grasp of UPF, what they are and what they mean for their health. Half of global respondents say they avoid some or all UPF foods, Lumina Intelligence research commissioned exclusively for FoodNavigator shows. Within that, over a third (39%) try not to eat UPFs or keep consumption to a minimum.

And there’s been a big shift in that figure, with more consumers citing an increased distaste of UPFs now than in the past, as the likes of social media and even traditional media continue to surface increasingly negative narratives about UPF.

This has contributed to a very narrow (and often negative) consumer view of what a UPF is in most countries. For example, globally, ready-to-eat foods and ready meals are considered UPF by 58% and 54% of consumers respectively. Of those, around half (27% and 26%) avoid the categories.

“While this is sizeable and these are the categories most at risk by the UPF backlash, it is worth noting that three quarters of consumers do not consider them as UPF or do but are not deterred,” says Lumina Intelligence senior insight manager Flora Zwolinski.

Categories including dairy, fruit yoghurts and baked beans are least considered to be UPF and as a result are avoided less. And here lies the dichotomy – because consumers don’t view such products as UPF, there are no or few negative health associations. Consumers may then enjoy the benefits of a calcium-rich yoghurt or protein and fibre-packed baked beans, though could be unaware of the potentially high sugar, salt or fat content.

Conversely, “people avoiding UPFs may treat foods that can play a useful role within a healthy, balanced diet, such as plant-based meat, sliced wholemeal bread and baked beans, with the same caution they apply to energy drinks or doughnuts,” says Amy Williams, nutrition lead at non-profit think tank the Good Food Institute Europe.

Slow tech uptake

Europe lags in food tech adoption due to regulatory caution, cultural conservatism, and consumer distrust. While innovation thrives globally, EU firms face hurdles scaling novel products. Experts urge mindset shifts and better communication to unlock potential and compete with faster-moving markets. Change is needed to stay relevant, as was recently revealed in the latest Future Food report.

And so there is no clear answer to whether consumers’ UPF aversion is due to wilful ignorance, a lack of knowledge or a combination of both. For example, 48% of consumers eat sliced white bread at least once a week, which they may not consider a UPF. However, around a third consume ready-to-eat products weekly, despite most citing them as UPF.

Further, 27% eat milk chocolate and 25% ready meals. So, while there’s a large portion of consumers “actively avoiding” UPFs, their diets say otherwise.

“I’m not at all surprised by that,” says a UK government health policy source. “UPFs are almost exclusively defined on the basis of ‘vibes’ and you can’t do any decent epidemiology or group foods for tax purposes when there’s such a woolly definition.”

But there’s market variation too. Consumers in countries like the UK and Australia claim to be more aware of UPFs, but still consume them, versus those in countries such as Italy and France having high awareness and high avoidance. For the former, it could be a case of wilful ignorance due to lifestyle choices, time constraints or even cost, with most UPFs deemed cheaper than scratch cooking.

In Spain and France, where UPFs are viewed with scepticism, consumers believe such food types contribute to an unhealthy diet, with Spanish consumers (55%) being the most critical.

In markets like India, China and Malaysia, however, there is a broader consumer understanding that some UPFs can be beneficial for health – especially those fortified with functional ingredients. This shows negative rhetoric and association around UPF and junk food can be separated.

“While UPF avoidance is undeniably a trend and impacting how and what consumers buy and eat, there is a lack of clarity and understanding as to whether UPF is always bad,” says Zwolinski.

There’s more to be done to change the dial, as most consumers asked (43%) believe UPFs are foods that are “bad for your health”, followed by 41% who say they are foods with strangely-named ingredients.

The food and drink industry needs to go further by developing more nutritious products and communicating these positives more clearly and accurately to consumers, argues Williams. She adds such conversations need to be led by independent and publicly-funded outlets.

But some pockets of society already grasp the positives UPFs can play in a healthy diet. Globally, younger consumers “have a more liberal view of ultra-processed foods”, says Zwolinski. “They are more likely to accept that it can be beneficial for health and part of a balanced diet, if done well.”

Older consumers were more sceptical of UPFs and more likely to avoid them. This shows further opportunity for brands and manufacturers to develop education and understanding among younger consumers to firmly break the negative narrative in the future.

To further complicate things, circumstantial concessions must be considered. For example, a consumer may perceive something negatively as UPF, but would happily consume it if it was the cheaper option or was convenient to eat, such as at work or on the move. Some consumers also claimed UPF consumption is permissible when snacking.

“The cheap cost of UPFs is one of the many things stated in the most commonly used UPF definition, so it’s therefore no surprise that some UPFs are cheaper than non-UPFs,” the UK government health policy expert explains. “There’s also a classism element, because the question of costs is not just what the stock price unit is, but also the time cost and energy cost it takes the consumer to make a non-UPF product versus UPF.”

But the opposite is also true, with a third globally saying they’d buy products with a shorter shelf life if it kept UPFs out of their grocery basket; less than a third (32%) would endure longer cooking times; and 29% claimed they’d be comfortable forgoing convenience.

When it comes to price, there is some contention. Globally, 29% of consumers would pay more to avoid UPF, rising to 36% in India, 35% in China and 34% in Malaysia. Over half (52%) of Indian consumers would pay a third more to avoid UPF.

It’s the opposite in the west, with 27% of US consumers saying they would pay more to avoid UPF, 25% in Australia, the UK and France, and 24% in Spain. Consumers in South Korea were the least likely (20%) to pay more to avoid UPF.

But any negative UPF association flies almost completely out the window for all markets when it comes to products with added health benefits. Just 17% of consumers globally say they’re uninterested in foods with added health benefits.

Globally, consumers are keen to buy more functional foods that offer healthy ageing, better sleep and improved immunity benefits. Within this, vitamins are the most understood and common ingredient, with half of consumers buying foods that contain added vitamins or are marketed as being high in certain vitamins.

“China has the highest interest in functional ingredients with Malaysia, India and South Korea all above the global average, making these key markets to target,” says Zwolinski.

Within wellness food categories, consumers tended to think less about whether a product was or was not a UPF. For example, yoghurts with claimed gut bacteria benefits are usually deemed beneficial to health by consumers. In many western countries, food and drink with added protein wins out, despite such products mostly being UPF.

“This is because UPF lacks an objective definition,” says the UK government health policy expert. “Everyone has their own definition, studies have shown there’s no consistency of how both members of the public and dietitians group products into UPF or non-UPF.”

The nutritional community struggles with grouping such food types: “I’ve seen very prominent people in the UPF debate use UPF and junk food interchangeably in the same sentence”, she adds. But the two aren’t to be conflated, because ‘junk food (HFSS) has an objective definition, “there are examples of UPFs that are junk foods and ones that aren’t”.

Should manufacturers be worried about the debate and the rise of the negative UPF rhetoric from consumers and governments? “Yes and no,” explains the government health expert. “I’ve seen food companies subbing out some of those ingredients perceived as negative on products, but it’s all woolly. In terms of ‘legals’, you can’t legislate on something that doesn’t have a clear definition, so manufacturers shouldn’t be worried from that point.”

It all shows the UPF debate is far from settled – and may never be. But perhaps that’s the point. It may be that manufacturers need to remove certain ingredients from products and reformulate to appease consumer concerns around them − such as chemical-sounding stabilisers. But they do like the cost, shelf life and convenience benefits that come from UPFs. More importantly, functional ingredients excite them most.

So, does global food and drink need to navigate out of UPF? No, but it needs to become better at communicating innovation and health benefits to rewrite the UPF narrative.

In summary, the top four points manufacturers must consider about consumer attitudes to UPF:

1. Functionality can offset health concerns
2. Reformulation in certain areas is key to navigating the ingredients consumers perceive most poorly
3. The cost and convenience of UPFs is important and must be more clearly explained to consumers
4. For businesses to succeed, there’s a wealth of opportunity in markets (and certain demographics) that are less anti-UPF

Future Foods: the inside scoop on UPFs

A new report from FoodNavigator and Lumina Intelligence reveals consumer barriers to understanding UPFs, what the challenges are for manufacturers within this as well as the opportunities to drive change and sales.

A total of 9,500 consumers were surveyed across 13 countries: the UK, US, China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, India, Malaysia, and Singapore.