Home
Health
What's the truth about UPFs? A nutritionist evaluates

Child's unhealthy lunchbox at school

What's the truth about UPFs? A nutritionist evaluates

Kerry Torrens – Nutritionist

Published: October 5, 2025 at 1:02 PM

loading...

Ultra-processed foods hit the headlines a few years ago now, but the controversy and health concerns around eating UPFs still show no signs of dying down. Our expert nutritionist looks into the latest evidence for what you need to know about convenience foods

The debate surrounding ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has remained in the spotlight since they first hit headlines in 2019. But where do we stand today? Is the widespread concern about UPFs justified or has our anxiety been unnecessarily triggered?

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been a hot topic and yet only 13% of us are thought to be able to identify one. From the initial rush of research and talk about health risks, the updated opinion views them with a little more nuance, recognising that while heavily processed diets may lead to poorer health outcomes, the classification used for UPFs (NOVA) has its limitations. For example, in classifying UPFs, NOVA groups beneficial fortified foods alongside less favourable junk foods. As a nutritionist, I regularly eat UPFs, so why am I happy to include them in my diet?

Read on to discover how UPFs are defined, why this definition causes problems, the evidence to date and how to navigate the food aisles.

Kerry Torrens BSc (Hons) PgCert MBANT is a registered nutritionist with a postgraduate diploma in Personalised Nutrition & Nutritional Therapy, and a member of the British Association for Nutrition and Lifestyle Medicine (BANT).

Headshot of Kerry Torrens

What are UPFs?

After more than two decades in nutrition I’ve learnt that food science is rarely clear cut. When we first started to hear about UPFs many of us, quite understandably, wanted to avoid them. However, several years in and there still remains a fair amount of confusion over what one actually is, with numerous experts lobbying for a clearer definition.

Table covered in bowls of crisps and dips

In simple terms, UPFs are foods that have been industrially processed and formulated using ingredients that aren’t available to us at home.

For those wanting a more technical answer, UPFs are commonly defined using the NOVA classification system, this is a framework that groups foods and drinks based on the extent and purpose of the industrial processing they undergo, rather than their nutritional contribution or value.

The NOVA classifications are:

1. Unprocessed or minimally processed

Natural foods that have been processed only to remove inedible parts (such as shelling or peeling), or perhaps freezing, cleaning or drying. For example, eggs and flour.

2. Processed culinary ingredients

Foods used as an ingredient to prepare, season or cook other foods. Examples include vegetable oils, butter and lard, sugar and molasses.

3. Processed food

Foods that have added ingredients or use methods like canning, curing and bottling for preservation. These may include tinned fruit and vegetables, cured or smoked meats and fish, and some cheeses.

4. Ultra-processed food

Foods made from substances that have been extracted from other foods or synthesised in a laboratory: they include carbonated drinks, flavoured yogurt and mass-produced bread.

What's wrong with NOVA?

The NOVA system is the most frequently cited and widely recognised system for classifying UPFs. However, it has been subject to criticism, being considered too broad in its definition. Examples include powdered milk (group 1) being considered less processed than olive oil (group 2); wholemeal, sliced bread and white sliced bread both being classed as UPF (group 4), despite the former offering significantly more nutrients and fibre. These anomalies occur because NOVA doesn’t take account of the nutrients in a food including fibre. It also does not advise on portion sizes or frequency of consumption.

What was the early advice around UPFs?

UPFs have and continue to make up a significant part of our diets but with mounting evidence suggesting a link with increased weight and poorer health outcomes. Unsurprisingly, we were encouraged to cut back on their consumption. However, as more evidence comes to light, we now appreciate that some UPFs can be convenient, nutritious and budget-friendly. Therefore, although well intentioned, the initial advice didn’t consider the affordability of UPFs and that they serve as a convenient alternative to some more costly foods. For certain groups, including babies and infants, UPFs may offer targeted nutrition to help them thrive or to manage certain health conditions.

Woman checking food labelling in a supermarket

What do we currently know?

We now have a better understanding on how different methods of processing affects the structure of food and how this impacts how we digest and assimilate the food’s nutritional value. This along with other aspects such as the addition of sugar, salt and other additives can influence the health profile of a food. That said, it’s not a simple equation. For example, the packaged wholemeal loaf bought from your local shop may be considered group four – but can still represent an important source of fibre and B vitamins, and consequently carry less risk to health than a group three or even group two food.

While studies have linked high consumption of UPFs with health issues such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers and increased mortality rates, these are largely observational. Which means they involve researchers asking people about their diets and assessing their health for a period of time. Although insightful, these studies make it difficult to understand the impact of overall diet and lifestyle.

So where does this leave us?

Although a number of countries advise reducing or avoiding UPFs, a recent scientific report states that while UPFs may cause health issues, the evidence is "difficult to assess, largely because of the lack of clear definition of ultra-processed foods". Moreover, the low number and significant methodological limitations of available studies also prevent us from reaching a definitive conclusion. All of which means more well designed random controlled trials are needed to understand the exact effects of UPF consumption on health.

Consequently, there remain a number of unanswered questions such as:

Is it the lack of nutrients in UPFs or high levels of fat, sugar and salt that causes health issues?
Is it the change in the food’s structure or the impact on our appetite or gut microbiome?
Could it be the use of additives such as emulsifiers, colours and flavourings?
Or is it dependent on other aspects of our lifestyle, such as whether someone smokes, drinks alcohol or leads a sedentary lifestyle?

Some studies have even suggested that the type of UPF may be relevant, with ready-meals containing meat, poultry and seafood showing higher associations with mortality risk. All this shows is that more quality research is needed.

How can I best navigate the food aisles?

UPFs to minimise…

We've long known that eating too much fat, sugar and salt leads to poor health, and a UK study confirmed that many, but not all, UPFs carry red traffic light coding and fewer green lights on front of pack labelling.

Other UPFs that are best avoided or minimised are those that undergo extensive formulation. These typically include additives and ingredients you wouldn’t find in your own kitchen (such as emulsifiers, preservatives, synthetic colours and flavours). These foods are designed to be convenient, have a long shelf life and are hyper-palatable. They tend to be high in calories, lack protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals, and tend to displace healthier whole foods in our diets. Examples include energy drinks and fizzy drinks, reformulated potato snacks, powdered soups and instant foods, like noodles.

Breakfast cereal

UPFs to include in moderation…

Some UPFs can offer a health benefit and as such justify their place as part of a balanced diet. Jars of pasta sauce and certain breakfast cereals, provided they’re high fibre and low sugar, are worth checking out – see if you can find brands with minimal additives. Foods like Marmite, baked beans, hummus and wholegrain breads are often victimised as being UPF, yet these staples play an important role in a balanced diet.

For some people, certain UPFs make it easier and more convenient to eat healthily because they are time-saving and you can still include fresh ingredients, like fruit and vegetables. One study suggests that a diet high in UPFs could still provide most macro- and micronutrients. Furthermore, processed foods, including fortified plant-based milks and low-sugar breakfast cereals, as well as gluten-free products make a valid contribution to a balanced, varied diet, and especially for those on a restricted diet.

In a cost-of-living crisis, some UPFs may help manage food costs – this is supported by a 2020 study that demonstrated that diets with a larger calorific share from UPFs were significantly cheaper than those composed of unprocessed components.

Read more: 5 ultra-processed foods that are good to eat

The take-home message

Some UPFs are easy and quick to prepare, and help reduce food waste thanks to their longer shelf life. That said, the foods most beneficial to your health are always going to be those that are whole and minimally processed, including fruit and vegetables. While these should make up the majority of your diet, processed foods and some UPFs can be of value and even essential. Infant and baby formula, products that meet a medical need (such as gluten-free) and fortified foods that give a nutritional boost to those following restricted diets are all UPFs but clearly provide health benefits.

However, without question, many UPFs are problematic. They are high in ingredients we should limit and low in those that provide valuable nutrition. But it is important to remember that, just because a food is industrially produced, this alone does not make it bad or even an unhealthy option.

So while evidence is still being collated there remains a trade-off between cost, convenience and nutritional contribution. Therefore, with this in mind, perhaps the best approach is to consider the healthiness of a food not by the number of ingredients it contains, the number of processes it has been subjected to or whether it has been made in a domestic kitchen, but on its overall merits to us, particularly its nutritional contribution to our diet as a whole.

The best way to do this is by understanding food labels, cooking from scratch when possible and focusing on a balanced and varied diet.

Comments, questions and tips

Choose the type of message you'd like to post

CommentQuestionTip

Get 3 months of Good Food All Access

Get 3 months of Good Food All Access for just £6. Find triple-tested recipes that take the stress out of deciding what to cook, spend less time planning, and more time enjoying the season.

Subscribe now