If you work in nutrition, you’ve undoubtedly been following the conversations around ultra-processed foods (UPF). From the steady drumbeat of new research assessing the potential health impacts of UPF to the flood of opinions from influencers, consumers, and important organizations, UPF is an issue with staying power. Food businesses must be prepared with their own perspective on UPF to inform consumers, customers, partners, and critics.
Whether – and how – UPF dialogues will evolve into policies that restrict these foods is an open question. Early shifts in global food-based dietary guidelines suggest mandates are coming – at least thirteen countries in Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia now openly discourage UPF in their guidelines. While few governments have taken the next step of introducing formal legislation, we are starting to see hints of progression.
What does the future hold for these actions and for the food supply? Forecasting nutrition policy is always a gamble, but recent global trends and signals may provide a glimpse into the future. Below are four insights by Global Food IQ based on our extensive engagement on this topic.
- States may act as first movers. In some countries, states can make faster, bolder legislative and regulatory decisions than bureaucratically burdened national governments. In the United States, this is certainly the case. In the last two months, at least eight states (California, Arizona, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Utah) have proposed taking action on UPF, with most suggesting bans on UPF in schools. Most of these bills define UPF according to foods’ ingredient and colors content, rather than aligning with NOVA or another commonly used definition. While this approach is unique, it aligns with food additive concerns expressed by new Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is poised to fast-track federal action on UPF in the coming years. Other countries could see analogous UPF measures bubbling up in provinces and states first, prior to any national action.
- Policy “vehicles” likely will vary, integrating UPF with other popular nutrition initiatives. Scientists and policymakers around the world have begun exploring UPF policies and regulations through existing nutrition policy avenues, including front-of-pack labeling (France), marketing restrictions (S.), taxes (Colombia, India), nutrition assistance program standards (Tennessee), and school foods rules (Brazil, U.S. states). Ultimately, an effective UPF strategy will address threats and opportunities through a comprehensive nutrition advocacy program, versus trying to navigate UPF in a vacuum.
- UPF policies would dramatically reshape the food supply. Estimates suggest UPF make up a significant portion of consumer diets today – including more than 30% of daily calories in Mexico, up to 44% of calories in Europe, and more than 50% of calories in the United States. Further, more than 70% of the U.S. food supply is estimated to be “ultra-processed” based on the NOVA definition. Policies targeting UPF would therefore go way beyond existing efforts to tax, restrict, label, or remove products higher in fat, sugar, and salt. They also could unintentionally target nutritious, convenient foods needed by busy, cost-conscious families as well as products specially designed for medically prescribed diets. These consequences underscore the need to use practical, evidence-based definitions or classification systems that consider consumer and food manufacturing realities, alongside public health goals.
- However, reaching a consensus definition for UPF may not be feasible. While the NOVA system is most often used in research and expert discussion, its limitations are also widely acknowledged. Nutrition organizations and advocates have recently called for and/or are working on potential alternatives. Examples include the World Health Organization, the University of Copenhagen (through a multi-sector effort), and prominent nutrition researchers who have suggested the Codex additive definition may be more fit-for-purpose. Add the important nuance that policy should reflect the unique needs of local populations, and the likelihood of selecting one global UPF definition seems improbable. Food businesses and stakeholders should contribute to these efforts, while recognizing the need to adapt to various outcomes.
For more UPF insights and support navigating this issue, reach out to Global Food IQ and schedule a meeting. We can help with global issue monitoring and analysis, strategy development, stakeholder engagement and strategic communications.
This post was written by Sarah Levy and Laurie Hainley, MS, RD, the founder of Hainley Nutrition Strategies and a frequent collaborator with Global Food IQ. Laurie has more than a decade of experience translating the latest nutrition science and policy developments into effective messaging and advocacy strategies.
