Rethinking Ultra-Processed Foods: Balancing Definitions, Health Guidance and the UPs Framework

Overview

Ultra-processed foods (UPF) are a focal point in nutrition discourse, but the term remains scientifically and practically ambiguous. This piece outlines how evidence linking UPF to poorer health is tempered by measurement challenges and social factors, and it argues for a more careful, balanced use of the term in policy and guidance.

• What UPF means and why definitions matter for public health guidance
• The US federal push in 2025 to establish a uniform UPF definition
• The risk of moralising food messaging and its potential to trigger disordered eating
• The proposal to distinguish ultra-processed and nutritionally poor foods from ultra-processed foods that may still fit in a balanced diet
• Introduction of the EAT-UP framework and the idea of unrefined plant foods as a positive category to eat more of

Original publisher: The Conversation

Overview

The article engages with a widely discussed nutrition topic: ultra-processed foods (UPF). It notes that a large body of research has found associations between high UPF intake and poorer health outcomes, yet many studies rely on self-reported diets and struggle to separate the effects of processing from nutrient quality, eating patterns, and broader social factors. The piece argues for a more careful use of the UPF term in both policy and dietary guidance, given the complexity of how UPF relates to health and how the term can be morally charged in public debates.

It also highlights a concrete policy development in the US, where the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture began a formal process in 2025 to define ultra-processed foods uniformly. A central question underscored throughout is what exactly constitutes “ultra-processed”: is it the ingredients, the manufacturing process, the degree of alteration from the original structure, or a combination of these? The article emphasizes that there is no single authoritative US definition, which complicates its use in regulation and dietary advice.

Policy landscape and the need for nuance

The author stresses that within nutrition science there is no consensus on how far UPF categorisation should guide policy or personal advice. Some researchers view UPF as a valuable signal of potentially harmful dietary patterns, while others argue that the category is too broad to serve as a stand-alone basis for recommendations. The piece underlines that a blunt category risks oversimplifying diverse foods and lifestyles, especially when UPF is treated as a catch-all for ingredients, industrial processes, formulation, marketing, and palatability in one bucket.

Importantly, the article points to the political and commercial dimensions of food systems as distinct from the scientific task of classification. It argues for a clearer separation of concerns: acknowledging the role of large food companies in shaping diets and public health, while recognising that this is not the same as solving the scientific and communicative problems of UPF definitions.

Beyond avoidance: a dual-path approach

A core argument is that public health messaging should avoid being solely about avoidance. Over-emphasis on UPF as inherently dangerous can create fear, guilt, and confusion, and can even contribute to disordered eating patterns. Instead, the article proposes distinguishing among three categories: (1) ultra-processed and nutritionally poor foods; (2) ultra-processed foods that may still have a valued place in a diet depending on their composition and use; and (3) minimally processed foods that should be encouraged in greater amounts. This approach would allow policymakers and clinicians to tailor guidance that recognises both risks and potential benefits, rather than adopting a blanket stance against processing itself.

To make this nuanced approach practical, the author introduces the EAT-UP framework and the term unrefined plant foods (UPs) to describe plant foods whose natural structure remains largely intact. UPs include whole fruits, vegetables, beans and grains that have not been heavily broken down or reconstituted. The aim is not to replace UPF classifications but to balance warnings with constructive guidance about what to add to the diet, as much as what to limit.

Unrefined plant foods and practical guidance

Unrefined plant foods are presented as a communicative tool that aligns with existing dietary guidelines—promoting fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains—while offering clearer boundaries for researchers and policymakers. The concept is intentionally simple in principle but requires careful, explicit definition. Phrases like “largely intact” are not self-explanatory and may be interpreted differently by researchers, policymakers and consumers. The central value, according to the author, lies in shifting the public health message from a focus on restriction to one of addition and balance.

The piece acknowledges the limitations of evidence linking higher whole plant-food intakes to better health, including the challenges of food diaries, self-reporting, cohort studies, and separating diet from lifestyle, but nonetheless notes consistent dietary guidelines support for increasing fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains. It also warns against language that could stigmatise or demonise foods, arguing for more precise and non-punitive communication about processed foods and everyday eating practices.

Communication, equity and implementation

The author argues that public health messaging should be careful not to foster fear around food or to condemn particular products or brands. Phrases like “real food” can carry assumptions about what counts as proper eating and who is doing it right, which may be influenced by income, time, access, and daily constraints. The article calls for guidance that recognises real-world conditions and supports people in making feasible, healthier choices within their circumstances.

Finally, the piece envisions a practical path forward: keep the UPF framework for population-level monitoring and research but refine it by distinguishing processing types, combining processing information with nutrient profiles, fibre content, additives, and marketing, and delivering guidance that includes both cautions and concrete recommendations about foods to eat more of. This integrative approach aims to reduce confusion and promote healthier dietary patterns without moralising food choices.

Quotes

"There is no consensus on how far the UPF category should guide policy or individual dietary advice," - The Conversation

"A better approach would distinguish more clearly between products that are ultra-processed and nutritionally poor, products that are ultra-processed but may still have a useful place in the diet, and minimally processed foods that people are encouraged to eat more of," - The Conversation

"The value of the concept lies in shifting part of the public health message from avoidance to addition," - The Conversation

"Advice based only on avoidance can easily become confusing or punitive," - The Conversation

"to combine processing-based classifications with evidence about nutrient profile, fibre content, additives, marketing and the role a food plays in the overall diet," - The Conversation