The conversation around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) just entered a new phase. With the release of The Lancet’s three-paper Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health, we now have one of the most comprehensive examinations of UPFs to date. The Lancet – a world-leading general medical journal with global reach – regularly publishes research that shapes scientific priorities, informs policy and guides the experts who serve on advisory committees, giving this Series significant potential to influence how UPFs are understood and regulated. In doing so, it elevates UPFs from a niche debate to a major public health priority with broad implications for dietary guidance and food-system strategy.
As someone working at the intersection of nutrition science, communications and industry strategy, I see this as both a scientific milestone and a call for more nuance in how we interpret and act on UPF research. For manufacturers, retailers, and food-system stakeholders, understanding the complexity (and limitations) of the UPF conversation is essential.
This is more than a nutrition update. It is a signal of where food policy, public health guidance and corporate accountability are headed and an early roadmap of how to prepare.
What the Series Reaffirms: Ultra-Processed Diets Are Linked to Multiple Health Risks
The Series strengthens an already substantial evidence base showing that dietary patterns high in UPFs are consistently associated with a range of adverse outcomes. Importantly, the authors focus on dietary patterns – not isolated products.
UPF-heavy diets tend to be characterized by:
- Higher intakes of saturated fat, added sugars, sodium and overall calories
- Lower overall diet quality
- Reduced fiber and micronutrient intake
- Lower levels of health-protective phytochemicals
- Greater exposure to harmful compounds formed or added during heavy processing (such as acrylamide, heterocyclic amines and other xenobiotics)
These patterns are associated with increased risk of major health outcomes, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, depression, Crohn’s disease, chronic kidney disease and all-cause mortality.
It’s important to emphasize that these correlations may likely reflect multiple interacting mechanisms, including hyper-palatability that drives overconsumption, high energy density, soft textures and disrupted food structures, the presence of additives and cosmetic ingredients, lower satiety and nutrient density, reduced phytochemical intake and exposure to potentially harmful byproducts of industrial processing.
The takeaway: UPF-dominant eating patterns may present a measurable risk.
A Nuanced Scientific Conversation
One of the strengths of the Series is its balanced discussion of ongoing scientific debates surrounding UPF research and the NOVA system, a food classification framework that groups foods based on the extent and purpose of industrial processing rather than their nutrient content.
1. The category is too broad.
This remains a legitimate criticism. NOVA Group 4 refers to ultra-processed foods (UPFs) – industrially created products made with multiple ingredients, including things like protein isolates, sweeteners, flavor enhancers and stabilizers, that may boost taste, texture, convenience or shelf life. This category lumps together foods as disparate as yogurts, whole-grain breads, plant-based milks, jarred sauces, cookies, soft drinks, chips and processed meats. The result is a classification that captures processing practices, but not meaningful nutritional differences.
The authors suggest that for regulatory purposes, nutrient stratification within the UPF category may be appropriate – particularly in countries with exceptionally high UPF consumption, where policy nuance will be essential.
2. Mechanisms are not fully understood.
While many plausible mechanisms have been proposed, no single factor explains the entirety of UPF-related risk. Research on specific additives (especially emulsifiers) and their impacts on the gut microbiome is growing quickly but remains inconclusive.
3. Evidence is mostly observational.
True, but not invalidating. Short-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated increased calorie intake and weight gain on UPF diets, reinforcing biological plausibility. Long-term RCTs on whole dietary patterns are rarely feasible. The Series correctly frames observational evidence, short-term trials and mechanistic insights as complementary.
4. NOVA is challenging to implement.
Classification challenges stem from incomplete food descriptions, not from the concept itself. Validated protocols and trained coders substantially reduce misclassification, and new food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and 24-hour recall tools designed specifically for NOVA are already in use.
What This May Mean for Dietary Guidelines and Global Nutrition Recommendations
This information may start to influence upcoming dietary guidance around the world. Several countries, including Brazil, Mexico and Canada – already incorporate processing level into national guidelines, and this new evidence strengthens that direction. Expect to see:
1. Integration of UPF reduction as a formal recommendation
Not simply “reduce added sugar and sodium,” but:
- Limit UPFs as a category
- Emphasize whole/minimally processed foods
- Encourage traditional, culturally rooted meal patterns
2. Use of UPF “markers” in nutrient profiling
Front-of-pack labels, school food standards and marketing restrictions may incorporate indicators such as:
- Non-sugar sweeteners
- Color/flavor additives
- Cosmetic processing techniques
This is already happening in Latin America and may be positioned to become an emerging global standard.
3. Guidance tailored to a country’s level of UPF transition
For nations early in the shift toward UPFs, the priority will be prevention. Where UPFs already dominate the food supply (U.S., U.K., Australia), policies will shift toward restriction, reformulation limits and structural incentives to change purchasing patterns.
Policy Implications: A New Era of Food Regulation
Voluntary corporate reformulation is no longer enough. The authors outline a policy framework that expands beyond traditional nutrient-focused approaches and directly targets the systems that drive UPF production and consumption.
A major focus is the tightening of regulations on UPF marketing, availability and affordability. Countries like Colombia and Mexico have adopted UPF-inclusive warning labels and tax frameworks, Brazil has committed to school meal standards requiring 90% whole or minimally processed foods by 2026, and Chile has implemented some of the world’s strongest restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children.
Another recommendation is the call to regulate transnational UPF corporations as a unit – addressing entire product portfolios, marketing practices, lobbying activities and market concentration. This represents a significant evolution in how public health policy might approach corporate influence.
The need for broader economic and agricultural realignment is also emphasized. Redirecting subsidies away from industrial commodities, supporting local and minimally processed food producers, improving affordability of whole foods and addressing socioeconomic and gender factors that drive UPF dependency are central to creating supportive food environments.
Finally, the authors call for coordinated global advocacy through a unified UPF action network – linking policy, civil society, litigation and strategic communications, similar to the coalitions that reshaped global tobacco control.
Implications for Industry: A Changed Landscape Ahead
For manufacturers and retailers, the implications are far-reaching. Increased scrutiny of additive-heavy formulations, new expectations for culinary-quality textures and whole-food ingredients, and potential taxation or labeling requirements tied to “ultra-processed markers” will reshape product development and portfolio strategy.
Retailers may face shifting expectations around what is promoted, how products are merchandised and what is served in public institutions. Companies that lean into transparency, invest in minimally processed innovation and evolve proactively, rather than reactively, will be best positioned for long-term success.
Where We Go Next: Considerations for Industry Leaders
If you’re a food manufacturer, retailer, policymaker or industry partner, here’s what to take from this moment:
1. The processing conversation is not going away. It’s accelerating.
Companies must prepare for scrutiny not only of nutrients but of degree and purpose of processing.
2. Transparency and simplicity will be strategic advantages.
Formulations that rely heavily on additives, emulsifiers and hyper-palatable constructs will face regulatory and public pressure.
3. Innovation must move “upstream.”
Growth opportunities will increasingly center on whole-food-based products, culinary-inspired formats and culturally resonant solutions.
4. Policy will shift from voluntary to mandatory.
Manufacturers and retailers should expect a compliance-oriented environment—more like tobacco, trans fats or added sugar regulation.
5. Equity must be part of the solution.
Any shift away from UPFs must consider cost, convenience and access—or risk unintended consequences for low-income communities.
Closing Thoughts: A Moment of Both Action and Precision
The Lancet Series makes one thing clear: ultra-processed dietary patterns pose a public health threat that requires policy, industry and societal action.
But acting does not mean oversimplifying. It means recognizing the complexity of UPFs, the limitations of our current tools and the need for science-aligned, culturally relevant strategies.
For industry leaders, health professionals and policymakers alike, this is a moment to:
- Stay grounded in evidence
- Maintain nuance
- Prioritize transparency
- Advocate for better research
- Support innovation that aligns with whole-food principles
- Prepare for regulatory change
The UPF conversation is evolving. The companies and stakeholders who evolve with it – thoughtfully, scientifically and strategically – will be the ones who lead the next chapter of the global food system. We’re supporting clients across the food system as we deepen our own understanding of this evolving space. Curious how this impacts your brand? Let’s talk.