What does new research say about ultra-processed foods? Summary
- 65% of European consumers believe UPFs harm long-term health
- Leeds study shows perceptions drive overeating more than ingredients
- Nova classification explains less than 4% of overeating behaviour
- Foods seen as sweet or processed more likely to trigger cravings
- Researchers urge industry to rethink UPF messaging and reformulation strategy
Ultra-processed foods have been linked to a whole host of negative health outcomes, including type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and lung cancer.
As a result, 65% of European consumers now believe ultra-processed foods are damaging to health.
In other words, the food and beverage industry is facing a big decision - either improve consumer perceptions of ultra-processed foods OR cut down processing to ease concerns.
And let’s be honest, neither of those options will be easy.
Having said that, scientists from the University of Leeds have just given manufacturers a major boost in helping towards the first.
How? They’ve analysed why and when people eat certain foods to truly understand their impact.
“My colleagues and I wanted to step back and ask: what actually makes people like a food? And what drives them to overeat – not just enjoy it, but keep eating after hunger has passed?" says Graham Finlayson, a researcher on the study.
How? What? Why?
The research team studied more than 3,000 UK adults and their responses to over 400 everyday foods.
“What we found,” says Finlayson, “challenges the simplistic UPF narrative and offers a more nuanced way forward.”
In nutrition research, two concepts are often confused, explains Finlayson:
- Enjoying the taste of a food
- Engaging in hedonic overeating - eating for pleasure rather than out of hunger.
Liking refers to flavour preference, while hedonic overeating describes the tendency to keep eating because the experience is enjoyable.
“The two are connected but not the same,” says Finlayson. “For instance, many people enjoy porridge but rarely consume it excessively, whereas chocolate, biscuits, and ice cream are common triggers for both liking and overeating.”
The team conducted three large online studies where participants rated photos of unbranded food portions for how much they liked them and how likely they were to overeat them. The foods were recognisable items from a typical UK shopping basket, such as jacket potatoes, apples, noodles, cottage pie, and custard creams. There were more than 400 in total.
They then compared these responses with three factors - the food’s nutritional content (fat, sugar, fibre, energy density), their level of processing based on the Nova classification, and how people perceived them (sweet, fatty, processed, healthy and so on).
The power of perception
Some of the study’s findings were expected by the researchers - people liked foods they ate often, and calorie-dense foods were more likely to lead to overeating.
But others were more surprising. In particular, the role of beliefs and perceptions shocked the scientists.
“Nutrient content mattered,” says Finlayson. “People rated high-fat, high-carb foods as more enjoyable, and low-fibre, high-calorie foods as more ‘bingeable’.”
Added to this, what people believed about the food held significant importance.
Perceiving a food as sweet, fatty, or highly processed increased the likelihood of overeating, regardless of its actual nutritional content. Meanwhile, foods believed to be bitter or high in fibre had the opposite effect.
“In one survey, we could predict 78% of the variation in people’s likelihood of overeating by combining nutrient data (41%) with beliefs about the food and its sensory qualities (another 38%),” explains Finlayson.
The team concluded that “how we think about food affects how we eat it, just as much as what’s actually in it”.
Furthermore, classifying a food as “ultra-processed” added very little to the researchers’ predictive models.
“Once we accounted for nutrient content and food perceptions, the Nova classification explained less than 2% of the variation in liking and just 4% in overeating,” explains Finlayson.
Though he was quick to clarify that this doesn’t mean all UPFs are harmless.
“Many are high in calories, low in fibre, and easy to overconsume,” he says. “But the UPF label is a blunt instrument. It lumps together sugary soft drinks with fortified cereals, protein bars with vegan meat alternatives.”
In other words, the problem with the Nova classification is again brought into sharp focus, as nutrient content is not considered.
“Some of these products may be less healthy, but others can be helpful – especially for older adults with low appetites, people on restricted diets, or those seeking convenient nutrition. The message that all UPFs are bad oversimplifies the issue," says Finlayson.
People don’t eat based on food labels alone. They eat based on how a food tastes, how it makes them feel, and how it fits with their health, social, or emotional goals.
“Relying on UPF labels to shape policy could backfire,” he explains. “Warning labels might steer people away from foods that are actually beneficial, like wholegrain cereals, or create confusion about what’s genuinely unhealthy.”
Reframing the conversation
The researchers came up with a list of recommendations for how industry and governments can approach the UPF conversation.
- Strengthen food literacy: Teach consumers what contributes to satisfaction in eating, what triggers cravings, and how to identify their own signals that lead to overeating
- Reformulate with purpose: Create foods that are both enjoyable and satisfying, instead of defaulting to plain “diet” items or overly engineered snacks designed for indulgence
- Understand eating motives: Recognise that people eat for reasons beyond physical hunger, including comfort, social connection, and enjoyment. Encouraging healthier alternatives while still preserving pleasure could help reduce reliance on low-quality foods
The future of ultra-processed foods
As consumer scepticism around ultra-processed foods grows, the food and beverage industry faces a pivotal moment.
The Leeds study offers a compelling case for moving beyond simplistic labels and embracing a more informed, perception-driven approach to product development and policy.
By focusing on how people actually experience food - its taste, emotional impact, and perceived health value - brands can better meet consumer needs without sacrificing enjoyment.
The challenge now is to turn insight into action, and reshape the UPF conversation with nuance, transparency, and purpose.
