The term “ultraprocessed food” (UPF) lacks a standardized scientific definition, leading public health agencies like the U.K.’s Food Standards Agency to move away from the classification in 2025. While UPFs are frequently linked to health risks in observational studies, researchers argue these findings often conflate nutritional content with industrial processing methods, complicating efforts to regulate the food supply based on current definitions.
The Origins and Limitations of the Nova Classification
The concept of ultraprocessed food emerged from a 2009 research paper in Brazil, which introduced the Nova grading system. This framework categorizes food into four groups based on the level of processing, ranging from unprocessed to ultraprocessed. According to the Nova scale, foods are either ultraprocessed or they are not, creating a binary classification that critics argue oversimplifies food science.
The primary challenge with the Nova system is that it does not measure the actual physical or chemical processing a food undergoes. Instead, it relies on the subjective assessment of researchers. As noted by Professor Carlos Augusto Monteiro, the architect of the Nova system, the definition often centers on whether a product is “branded,” “convenient,” or “highly profitable” rather than the industrial techniques used to manufacture it. This has led to inconsistencies, such as labeling home-cooked items as “ultraprocessed” simply because they mirror the ingredients of store-bought equivalents.
Did you know?
The original 2009 Nova research paper classified common staples like fresh bread and cured sausages as ultraprocessed, a categorization that many nutritionists now consider overly broad and scientifically imprecise.
Evidence Gaps in UPF Health Research
Much of the public concern regarding UPFs stems from observational studies that link consumption to health issues such as heart disease and dementia. However, these studies rely on self-reported food intake, which makes it difficult to establish direct causation. According to analysis of current literature, these papers often fail to account for the specific nutritional profiles of the foods involved.
Randomized trials, which are considered the gold standard for nutritional evidence, have produced results that contradict the severity of the “UPF boogeyman” narrative. Even in studies where participants were fed diets consisting entirely of ultraprocessed foods, the negative health impacts were minimal compared to control groups. A recent study published in the journal Science suggests that any observed health differences in these trials are likely due to higher energy density—more calories per bite—rather than the processing methods themselves. In practice, studies often compare highly processed, calorie-dense foods like ice cream to minimally processed options like yogurt and fruit, creating a nutritional imbalance that has nothing to do with the “ultra” label.
Future Trends: Moving Beyond “Vibes” in Food Regulation
The future of food policy is shifting toward evidence-based nutritional guidelines rather than broad, label-based restrictions. The U.K.’s Food Standards Agency recently signaled this change by discarding the concept of UPFs in its 2025 guidance. After an extensive review, the agency determined that the term is largely meaningless for public health policy.
Regulators are increasingly moving toward a focus on specific nutrients—such as sugar, salt, and saturated fat—rather than the degree of processing. This trend suggests that consumers may soon see a move away from the “ultraprocessed” label in favor of clearer, nutrient-specific transparency. The consensus among some researchers is that regulating the food system based on “vibes” or subjective definitions is ineffective, and that future policy will likely prioritize fiber intake and vegetable consumption over the avoidance of industrial processing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main problem with the “ultraprocessed” label?
The term is not defined by how much a food is processed, but rather by subjective research criteria that vary from study to study, making it an unreliable metric for health.
Are all processed foods unhealthy?
No. The U.K. Food Standards Agency notes that the UPF category includes a wide variety of foods, some of which are unhealthy and others that are not. The focus is shifting toward total nutritional intake.
Should I stop eating foods labeled as UPFs?
Health authorities suggest focusing on a balanced diet rich in vegetables and fiber and limiting excessive sugar, salt, and saturated fat, rather than worrying exclusively about the processing level of a specific item.
Have thoughts on how food labeling should evolve? Share your perspective in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more deep dives into nutritional science.
Keep reading
