UPF public dialogue report published

The report ‘Making Sense of UPFs’ has been published by UKRI today, detailing the findings of a year-long public dialogue on the nation’s relationship with UPFs.

Sara Stanner, Science Director at the British Nutrition Foundation said:

“This public dialogue demonstrates considerable public interest in the health and sustainability of the UK food system and a clear appetite for engagement with complex evidence. Participants across the UK expressed strong support for high‑quality, independent research on UPFs, alongside a pragmatic understanding of the role these foods currently play in everyday life”.

Prof John Mathers, Professor of Human Nutrition, Newcastle University and member of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees, who was a member of the oversight group for this report commented:

“This public dialogue was a very thorough and equitable process that enabled people across the UK to learn about, and to express their views on, key research gaps around UPFs. The public’s shock at the scale, and pervasiveness, of the problem demands an appropriate response from UKRI. A little more of the same will not be nearly enough. The new £3 million Diet and Health Collaborative Research and Development programme with DEFRA is a small step in the right direction.

However, UKRI will need to make much more substantial, long-term investments in research across the food system focussing on impacts on health, the environment, economics and power dynamics if they are to respond adequately to the public’s call for evidence that can promote greater trust in the food system and that will underpin a national Food Strategy that works for everyone.”

British Nutrition Foundation response

As participants’ understanding of the UPF debate increased, so too did their desire for greater clarity, stronger evidence and improved transparency. At the same time, they recognised the trade‑offs inherent in current food systems, particularly between convenience, affordability and health, and acknowledged that UPFs remain an important source of food for many people. There was clear support for reformulation and for industry to be part of the solution, provided this is guided by robust, trustworthy evidence and leads to meaningful improvements in nutritional quality rather than superficial change.

Participants were clear that while observational studies consistently demonstrate associations between high consumption of UPFs and poorer health outcomes, the mechanisms underpinning these relationships are not yet well understood. Many recognised that these associations may reflect a combination of interacting factors, including overall diet quality, social and economic circumstances, and wider food system dynamics. This uncertainty was widely seen as strengthening the case for further research that can distinguish between direct biological effects and indirect or contextual influences.

A recurring theme within the dialogue was the need to better differentiate within the broad category of UPFs. Many participants asked explicitly whether some UPFs could be consumed as part of a healthy, balanced diet, and sought clarity on what constitutes a "better” or “worse” choice within this category. Linked to this, they expressed strong interest in research exploring the role of specific ingredients, especially additives, in explaining why UPF consumption is associated with poorer health outcomes. They highlighted the importance of understanding the potential biological mechanisms involved, particularly in relation to emulsifiers, preservatives and artificial sweeteners, and to a lesser extent stabilisers, thickeners, colours and flavourings. For participants, this ingredient‑level research was seen as essential to disentangling correlations from causation, informing proportionate policy and regulation and guiding evidence‑based reformulation.

There was a clear public mandate for research that is ambitious, coordinated and focused on impact. Participants prioritised UK research that examines how, and to what extent, UPFs affect physical and mental health, with particular emphasis on child development and long‑term health trajectories. They also highlighted the need for improved evidence on the environmental impacts of UPFs, including production practices and packaging, especially in the context of the climate crisis.

Importantly, participants did not consider UPFs in isolation. They emphasised the need for behavioural research that reflects real‑world food choices, alongside structural research examining affordability, accessibility and the wider food environment. Concerns about inequality were prominent, with many noting that people on lower incomes often face the greatest barriers to healthier diets. Participants expressed strong interest in evidence on what interventions are genuinely effective in supporting dietary change, including education, labelling, pricing mechanisms, incentives and community‑based food initiatives.

Across all research priorities, transparency, independence and inclusion were identified as essential principles. Trust emerged as a central theme. Participants were sceptical of marketing practices and health‑related claims on food packaging, and consistently placed greater trust in publicly funded, independent research. At the same time, they recognised that progress will require collaboration, including applied research partnerships with industry, particularly in relation to reformulation and innovation, where these are underpinned by clear public benefit and appropriate safeguards.

Views differed on the balance between acting now and waiting for stronger evidence. Some participants supported a precautionary approach, particularly in relation to potential harms to children and long‑term pressures on the NHS. Others felt that clearer evidence on causal pathways would strengthen policy decisions and enable more durable change. What united participants was the view that delaying action in the absence of a clear, coordinated research and innovation strategy carries risks of its own.

Addressing the complexity of UPFs, and the food system more broadly, will require collective effort. No single actor can resolve these challenges alone. Government, researchers, industry, civil society and the public all have a role to play. This dialogue provides a clear and constructive mandate: to deepen understanding, strengthen trust, and work collaboratively towards a food system that supports both human and planetary health.