Managing Perceptions Around "Ultraprocessed" Foods

There’s a war on ultraprocessed foods, and for good reason—recent research has demonstrated that many types of ultraprocessed foods are linked to obesity, cardiometabolic risks, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality.¹ But what does the term ultraprocessed actually mean in practice, and how is the industry understanding this term? There are several misconceptions and double standards surrounding this terminology, which leaves ingredient manufacturers and finished-product brands in the processed foods space at a disadvantage in branding and marketing. Here’s what food and ingredient processors need to know about the rebellion against ultraprocessed foods.

Ultraprocessed Carries Misconceptions

Experts say there are several misconceptions around the term ultraprocessed. One common misconception is that there’s a legal definition of ultraprocessed, when, in fact, there isn’t. Nadeen Myers, lead application development specialist at Foodology by Univar Solutions in Downers Grove, Illinois, says the lack of a legal definition for the term is causing consumer confusion.

“The concept generally considers both the ingredients used and the nature and extent of the industrial processing involved in production,” Myers says. “Manufacturers and proponents alike have created their own definitions to suit their needs.”

Myers says the term ultraprocessed originated through the NOVA food classification system, which categorizes food based on the nature and extent of processing rather than nutritional quality alone. However, she says, over time, the term has drifted to broadly label any food perceived as “not natural.”

Lack of Standardization Causes Consumer Confusion

Another area where the term ultraprocessed falls short is in its lack of standardization. Steve Gibb, MS, is the science communications manager for the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. Gibb says that standardization in any area of science typically refers to general agreement among experts. Without a generally agreed-upon standardized approach, he says, it’s hard to know how to bring different pieces of information together—for instance, how to compare studies.

“When the ultimate goal of grouping foods based on particular characteristics is to improve public health, understanding what the sum of evidence tells us and the strength of that collective evidence is critical to ensure that policies have the intended effect,” Gibb says. “It is fair to say that standardization must occur before policy development.”

Gibb says there are several major inconsistencies around how processed foods are classified. First and foremost is the language. Several classification systems use the term processing or level of processing when the classification is based on formulation. The argument is that because information about processing is hard to come by, ingredients or additives can be used as a marker of processing. However, Gibb notes, this adds imprecision as the health effects of processing are very different from the health effects of the ingredients a food contains.

“Another challenge is that while processing is emerging as potentially impactful to health in new ways, there is general scientific agreement that added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium should be limited,” Gibb adds. “This is stated in the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans as well as nearly all of the past iterations. However, classification systems based on processing are agnostic to those nutrients. For example, a cake baked at home with ample sugar, butter, and salt is not considered a highly processed food.”

Is Concern Justified? Double Standards in Food Processing

There are other major misconceptions around the ultraprocessed classification system. Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak, MS, RDN, the president and CEO of the International Food Information Council (IFIC) in Washington, DC, explains that one of the biggest misconceptions around ultraprocessed foods is that they’re all the same. In point of fact, she says, foods that fall into this category can have very different nutritional profiles.

“This is exactly what we found in our IFIC report, Processed Foods in Context: An Analysis of Consumer Purchasing Patterns, Food Classification Approaches, Nutrition Density & Price. By examining US retail grocery purchases through both the Nova classification system and the Nutrient Rich Food [NRF] Index 6.3, we found that processing categories alone do not reliably predict nutrient density. Products classified as Nova 4 make up a substantial share of sales across many food categories, and their NRF 6.3 scores vary considerably.”

Gibb adds that certain foods undergo considerable processing yet fall outside the “highly” or “ultra” categories. He cites the examples of milk and flour, both of which go through about 6 processing steps from the field to the consumer. That same milk or flour can be used to make artisanal or industrial bread; the difference lies in the formulation, not in the actual processing.

“At the same time, certain processing steps could have very different effects on the metabolic response to food,” Gibb says. “We know that there is a different response to apples vs applesauce vs apple juice. But these distinctions are not made in existing food classification systems.”

Clean-Label Trends Upward

Myers notes that the industry has gotten creative to respond to consumer preferences for clean-label or pantry-friendly foods. Instead of reaching for a chemically modified starch, for instance, a manufacturer might use a native starch that does the same job.

“As consumers educate themselves on this topic, they may consider gravitating toward products that do not contain ultraprocessed ingredients,” Myers said. “However, they will take into consideration the taste, texture, and cost. Many consumers are showing interest in products that feature simpler, more recognizable ingredient lists.”

Ultraprocessed is Ultraconfusing

The ultraprocessed label was originally intended to help consumers make smarter nutritional choices, but is it doing more harm than good? Contract manufacturers are bending over backward to make their products as healthy as possible, whether processed or not. While aiming to improve health at the population level is a noble goal, experts say there are several core misconceptions about what ultraprocessed means in practice, which are causing consumers to make choices based on faulty information.

For Myers, the balance isn’t about eliminating processing; it’s about being intentional: Deliver the functional, in-demand ingredients that consumers want, and then keep the rest of the ingredients as clean, recognizable, and pantry-friendly as possible.

Reference

1. Elizabeth L, Machado P, Zinocker M, Baker P, Lawrence M. Ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a narrative review. Nutrients. 2020;12(7):1955. doi:10.3390/nu12071955