The Lancet has reignited the global debate on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) with a new report linking their consumption to harm across most organs in the body.
The series calls for sweeping policy changes, including stricter regulation of UPFs and limiting industry involvement in nutrition policymaking.
Researchers argue that highly processed products (most often those high in additives, emulsifiers and flavour enhancers) are associated with increased risks of chronic disease, obesity and mortality.
However, the Lancet’s recommendations have been slammed by food industry groups and other sector heavyweights.
Most question the scientific basis and practicality of the measures proposed by the Lancet.
As such, trade bodies and manufacturers warn that classifying foods by processing rather than nutrient profile risks confusing consumers and undermining established dietary guidelines.
They argue that many products labelled “ultra-processed”, such as wholemeal bread, frozen vegetables and fortified cereals, play an important role in balanced diets and food security.
Recent research by Lumina Intelligence on behalf of FoodNavigator showed consumers are more confused than ever about UPF and require clarity instead of damning reports.
Industry representatives also stress that global health strategies should prioritise nutrient quality, affordability and access rather than manufacturing methods. They point to decades of reformulation efforts that have reduced salt, sugar and calories in mainstream products, alongside commitments to transparency and collaboration with policymakers.
Here’s what the industry and insiders say in response to the report:
Kate Halliwell, chief scientific officer, The Food and Drink Federation:
“Food and drink manufacturers make a wide range of products, all of which can form part of a balanced diet – from everyday food and drink, like frozen peas, wholemeal bread and breakfast cereals, to treats like puddings and confectionary. Companies have been making a series of changes over many years to make the food and drink we all buy healthier, in line with government guidelines. As result, FDF-member products on sale across shops and supermarkets now contain a third less salt and sugar and a quarter fewer calories than they did in 2015.
Read more
How the Lancet's UPF report could hit food and drink:
“For everyone to be confident that food and drink policies and regulations work in the real world, we believe that consultation and collaboration between government and industry is critical , and we support this being done in as transparent a way as possible.
“The UK’s current dietary advice to eat more fruits, vegetables and fibre and less sugars and salt, is based on decades of scientific evidence. As highlighted by scientists commenting on this report, we agree that we need more, better quality research to be able to understand if there’s an additional link between food processing and health. This aligns with the view of the government’s independent Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.”
Sara Lamonaca, director of consumer information, nutrition & health, FoodDrinkEurope:
“If a meaty pasta sauce or a vegetable preserve can be branded as ‘ultra-processed’ and thus ‘bad’, we’ve lost the plot.
“These affordable, nutritious foods help people eat better, yet to The Lancet, just one ingredient lands them on a blacklist. The UPF label confuses consumers and experts alike and is not a suitable basis for public health policy.”
Rocco Renaldi, secretary-general, IFBA:
“We share a goal of improving global health outcomes through diet quality and access. However, the policy and advocacy recommendations of this series go far beyond the available evidence - proposing new regulatory action based on “processing” or additive “markers” and calling for the exclusion of industry from policymaking. If adopted as proposed, these policy recommendations would risk limiting access to nutrient-dense processed foods and reducing the availability of safe, affordable, shelf-stable options globally.
“Health authorities across the globe have rejected using the “ultra-processed food” concept as a basis for public health policy, citing its lack of scientific consensus, its imprecision and potential to cause confusion, and the risk that it could undermine established, evidence-based nutrition strategies.
“Public health policy must be guided in the totality of scientific evidence and consider the diverse realities of global food systems. Simplistic classifications or attempts to regulate foods by manufacturing process risk overshadowing the proven drivers of health outcomes - balanced diets, nutrient quality, and equitable access to healthy choices.
“IFBA and its members welcome continued dialogue with policymakers and the scientific and public-health communities to strengthen the evidence base and ensure policies effectively improve nutrition and global public health outcomes.”
Amir Mousavi, founder and creative director at Good Food Studio:
“Reports like these are late to the party,” says Amir Mousavi, founder and creative director at Good Food Studio. “Industry is already moving to clean decks and things are shifting. For example, almost all starches available to food technologists are now clean label.”
Mousavi speaks from experience. At Good Food Studio, he consults on FMCG brand retail projects across frozen, snacking and health foods. Previously, he developed own-label ready meals for supermarkets with Bakkavor and Oscar Mayer. More recently, he collaborated with fitness expert Joe Wicks on a highly controversial UPF documentary for Channel 4.
The industry is moving beyond UPF “nasties” because it always responds to consumer demand, he says. “After the Second World War, people wanted more calories. In the 1990s, it was reduced-calorie foods. Now, it’s all about high protein.”
He is concerned about the current UPF debate, arguing media coverage often veers to extremes. “That’s how you end up with Heinz Beans on a list of UPFs that should be taxed.”
So, if manufacturers are already making progress on cleaner labels and lower-UPF products, does that mean they believed products were dangerous before? “Not at all,” says Mousavi. While he stresses he’s not qualified to give a definitive answer, he points out that manufacturers only use ingredients and processes deemed safe and within legal limits.
If he were to pick a fight, it would be with health claims on some processed foods. Particularly children’s cereals that are essentially HFSS but “gamed” to be “healthy” with claims about iron, fibre and other nutrients.
