UPF science and policy event

An event at Imperial College London yesterday, Assessing the science and advancing regulatory and policy responses to ultra-processed foods. attended by our Chief Executive Elaine Hindal, explored the science and policy issues on foods categorised as ultra-processed.

The meeting demonstrated that research on ultra-processed foods (UPF) continues to grow at pace and that scientists are exploring key questions about how diets high in foods and drinks classified as ultra-processed affect health. Alongside the nutrition science, research on policy was presented, investigating the use of the UPF classification as a policy tool to guide healthier diets in populations around the world.

Much of the policy discussion centred on the use of nutrient profiling models to identify ultra-processed foods that should, for example, display warning labels. For the most part, policies to identify and restrict ultra-processed foods are centred on their nutrient content, with nutrient profiling models used in Central and South America including over 80% UPFs by using criteria for nutrients of concern. This is reflected in research from the UK, showing that there is significant overlap between products classified as UPF and HFSS as defined by the current UK nutrient profiling model – with 78% of UPF products also classified as high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) if breads and yogurts are excluded.

Speakers at the meeting urged governments to act to improve diet-related health. We agree that that the impact of poor diets is clear and must be addressed to make healthy, sustainable diets accessible to all.

However, we believe policy action should continue to be focused on reducing consumption of foods that are categorised as HFSS and encouraging increased consumption of the foods and nutrients we want people to consume more of, such as fibre, vegetables and pulses.

Policies should continue to target HFSS foods and drinks because these nutrient‑based risk factors remain the most robust, consistently evidenced drivers of obesity and diet‑related disease in the UK. HFSS criteria are well established, clearly defined and already embedded in existing regulatory frameworks, allowing for practical and measurable interventions such as reformulation incentives, marketing restrictions and clearer consumer signposting. Given the strength and stability of this evidence base, HFSS should remain the central focus of UK nutrition policy to achieve meaningful population‑level health improvements. Alongside, policies to limit HFSS foods and drinks we should also not lose sight of the need to incentivise consumption of healthier foods, making these accessible equitably across our population.

However, as the event demonstrated, research on the health effects of processing is evolving rapidly, supported by key UK research funders such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). There are emerging questions about whether some aspects of processing, such as texture, structure and the integrity of the food matrix, may independently influence appetite, energy intake or metabolic responses. We support continued monitoring of high-quality research on processing-related factors so that future policy can be updated responsibly and equitably if, and when, clearer mechanisms are established.