Ultra-processed foods have come under increasing scrutiny, with large observational studies and umbrella reviews linking higher consumption to a range of adverse health outcomes, but analysis of US retail food purchases by NielsenIQ (NIQ) and the International Food Information Council (IFIC) suggests processing classification may not tell the full story about a food’s nutritional value.
Commissioned by IFIC, the study by NIQ analyzed the level of processing, nutritional quality and price of more than 40,000 groceries across five common categories to determine how the three factors intersected. The aim was to establish how prevalent ultra-processed products are in real-world grocery purchases, and whether their processing classification offers a useful indication of nutrient density.
The research comes against a backdrop in which “the digital discourse around processed foods is highly visible and emotionally charged,” but which “reflects what people say, rather than what they purchase or consume,” IFIC explains in the report published last month.
NIQ used the NOVA system to evaluate and classify products as ultra-processed based on ingredient attributes, including specific additives, such as flavors, colors, emulsifiers, sweeteners or thickeners.
It then assigned a standardized nutrient density score to each product based on its Nutrition Facts Panel using the Nutrient Rich Food Index 6.3 model, which is a widely used, peer-reviewed system that evaluates six nutrients to encourage, such as protein, fiber and calcium, and three to limit, including saturated fat, added sugar and sodium.
UPFs are widely prevalent, but their nutrient density varies
The analysis found UPFs accounted for roughly three-quarters of all US food and beverage sales in the retail data examined. The prevalence was even higher in some categories, such as a cereals, in which ultra-processed food makes up 92% of the category sales and 85% of all items. UPFs were less prevalent in snack foods, accounting for 75% of sales and 74% of items.
But just because a product qualified as a UPF did not necessarily mean it had a lower nutrient-density score.
Rather, IFIC found that while the average nutrient density of non-UPF products was higher across the five categories analyzed, some UPFs had equal or greater nutrient density than less-process counterparts within the same food category, according to the study.
For example, NIQ found the average nutrient density score for cereal was 30, but 837 cereals classified as UPF scored above this benchmark, compared to 329 non-UPF cereals.
“These findings highlight that many [ultra-processed] cereals deliver meaningful nutritional value while also offering the variety, affordability and accessibility that may support real-world consumer needs,” IFIC notes.
It adds this example also “illustrates why processing classification alone can be misleading regarding nutrition and/or healthfulness.”
How do the findings intersect with health research?
While the research shows the limits of using ultra-processing as a proxy for a product’s nutrient profile, it does not suggest that processing classification is irrelevant to health.
Rather, earlier IFIC research found concerns about the correlation between UPFs and health outcomes are rising alongside consumer confusion. Its most recent annual health and wellness survey found 80% of Americans consider whether a food was processed before the buy it – up from 76% in 2023. It also found only four in 10 Americans said they could clearly explain processing and the same number said they did not fully understand it. The remaining two said they could not explain it.
Despite not fully understanding processing, IFIC analysis found consumer sentiment about UPFs is nearly four times more negative than it was in 2022.
While their confusion may be due to a lack of a formal definition for UPFs or how processing and nutrition relate, their fear reflects prominent research questioning the connection between processing and health.
For example, an umbrella review of 45 pool studies involving nearly 9.9 million people published in the British Medical Journal in 2024, found association between higher UPF consumption and 32 health parameters, including mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic health and other indicators.
Notably, the BMJ review and the NIQ data did not look at the same factors. BMJ examined exposure to UPFs in the diet and its association with health outcomes, while IFIC and NIQ looked at the classification and nutrient density of individual retail products.
Industry implications
Taken together, the findings and greater body of research underscore the challenge manufacturers face when responding to consumer concerns about processing and nutritional composition.
For policymakers, the body of research raises questions about whether processing classification is most useful when treated as one dimension of food assessment, rather than a complete measure of nutritional quality.
