Media Bulletin – March 2025

TOPIC: ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS

Date: 03/17/2025 Issue No.: 2025-01

Food processing is the process of transforming fresh foods and raw materials into safe, nutritious, and edible food and beverage products. This process involves a series of methods such as heating, smoking, curing, ripening, drying, and packaging.

Today, obesity and malnutrition continue to be major problems, while we are also facing significant environmental issues such as the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity. The use of the term “ultra-processed food” and related classifications will not have a positive impact in the search for solutions to improve public health and environmental issues. FoodDrinkEurope’s (FDE) views on ultra-processed foods (UPF) are as follows:

1) More processing of food does not necessarily mean it is less healthy or worse for the environment.

On the contrary, we can make our foods healthier through processing and new product formulations. For example, fortifying foods can increase a product’s micronutrient content. In line with European Union (EU) policy objectives, products can be reformulated to increase fiber content or reduce fat, salt, and sugar levels. Furthermore, various processed food product options can be offered to vegans, vegetarians, and flexitarians, whose numbers are growing and who make dietary choices considering environmental impacts.

2) The classification of “ultra-processed foods” is not rational. It also conflicts with scientific assessments of the nutritional composition of foods and portion recommendations.

There is no legal definition of “ultra-processed food” in the EU or at the global level. There is no legal definition of “ultra-processed food” in the EU or globally. Researchers from the University of Surrey and the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) examined over 100 scientific articles on food processing classifications

3) The term “ultra-processed food” confuses everyone from nutritionists to consumers and beyond.

In a recent study conducted in France, 170 nutrition and food science experts were asked to categorize a range of foods according to the NOVA classification. The results showed that experts placed ‘ultra-processed foods’ into healthier categories and healthy foods into the ultra-processed foods category, contradicting each other. This situation, which even confuses experts, significantly reduces consumers’ chances of making the right choices. For example, according to the NOVA classification, a croissant made at a neighborhood bakery is not considered an ultra-processed food, while whole wheat bread purchased at a supermarket is classified as ultra-processed.

4) Warning consumers about ‘ultra-processed foods’ has many undesirable side effects.

a. Healthier foods are under threat: Many nutritious supermarket products, including whole wheat bread, low-fat fruit yogurt, and vegetable soup, will fall under the ultra-processed food classification.

b. Public health goals are undermined: Even though they have a healthy nutritional profile, avoiding certain foods because they are classified as “ultra-processed” may reduce dietary fiber and micronutrient intake.

c. Artisanal, traditional foods are threatened: Consumers may perceive artisanal and traditional products, such as deli meats and baked goods, as “ultra-processed” and consequently avoid them.

d. Hinders innovation: Guidelines on food processing may be misinterpreted as suggesting that processed food is bad, leading consumers to reject vital food innovations that contribute to more sustainable food systems.

e. Assumptions about home-cooked foods: You can cook healthy meals at home with the right measurements and ingredients, but this does not validate the assumption that home-cooked foods are healthier.

5) Food safety is at the heart of public policy.

The food and beverage industry prioritizes consumer safety. If food is not safe, it is not food. For example, every additive undergoes a rigorous safety assessment by the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Furthermore, the food and beverage industry continues to support research into the relationship between food processing and its potential impact on health, the environment, and food safety.

6) There are better solutions available to improve the impacts on health and sustainability.

If “ultra-processed food” classifications do not help improve our health or protect the environment, what other solutions can be considered?

a. Healthy eating: Helps consumers consider a product’s nutritional composition, as well as consumption frequency, portion size, and lifestyle.

b. Innovation: Supports innovations such as reformulation and fortification to provide products like low-fat spreadable products, low-sugar beverages, or enriched cereals.

c. Education: Provides consumers with information to choose a healthy diet through labeling, awareness campaigns, and education for all ages.

d. Food environments: Makes it easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets.
e. Marketing and advertising: Ensures that advertising and marketing are fair and accurate by promoting programs such as the EU Commitment and national initiatives.

f. Lifestyle: Promotes a healthy lifestyle, including healthy and balanced nutrition as well as physical exercise.

At the expert meeting of the European Margarine Association (IMACE), of which we are a member, held on January 18, 2024, the classification of margarines in category 4 and vegetable oils in category 2 in the NOVA Classification was discussed in more detail. It was decided not to contact the NOVA authors to request clarification on this grouping. According to the NOVA classification, the UPF category is defined as “formulations that are mostly intended for specific industrial use, produced through a series of industrial processes requiring complex equipment and technology.” UPF includes what many people call junk food: packaged snacks, soda, energy drinks… However, UPF can also include other packaged foods that are less obvious: ready-made sauces, pre-prepared meals, salad dressings, and many plant-based substitutes for animal products (e.g., plant-based cheese alternatives) are also classified as UPF according to the NOVA system.

Aslında NOVA, ürünlerin farklı kategorilere göre sınıflandırılmasının sağlıklı olmasına değil, işleme düzeyine dayanması nedeniyle eleştirilere maruz kalmaktadır. Şu anda UPF terimi sıklıkla kullanılsa da hangi ürünlerin UPF olarak nitelendirildiği ve işleme düzeyinin mutlaka ‘sağlıksız’ olup olmadığı konusunda anlaşmazlıklar bulunmaktadır. NOVA, çoğu doymuş yağ, şeker veya tuz açısından nispeten düşük olmasına ve protein, lif içermesine ve takviye edilmiş olmasına rağmen, bitki bazlı ikame maddeleri çikolata barlarıyla aynı gıda kategorisine koyduğu için eleştirilmektedir. Başka bir deyişle UPF’nin tanımı uzmanlar arasında bile tam olarak net değildir.

According to the Ultra-Processed Foods and Consumer Perception Report published by EIT Food (European Institute of Innovation and Technology) , 89 knowledgeable members who wanted to discuss food participated in the research, gathered in the Citizen Participation Forum, an online community with approximately 300 members from 17 European countries. According to the report, plant-based alternatives are perceived as UPF more by those who do not eat them:

Approximately one-third of consumers think plant-based substitutes are UPF: Plant-based substitutes (vegetarian chicken pieces and vegan cheese slices) are seen as UPF by about one-third of European consumers (36% and 34%). Additionally, when compared to their animal-based originals in the survey, they are more likely to be seen as UPF. Vegans are less likely to rate vegetarian chicken pieces as UPF (28%) than vegetarians (39%) and omnivores (36%). However, vegan cheese is seen as UPF by more vegans (30%).

Half of Europeans avoid plant-based substitutes because they are UPF: However, consumers who consume plant-based alternatives are less likely to believe that the fact that they are UPF means they are less healthy. Compared to consumers who do not follow a plant-based diet (between 53% and 61%), vegans and vegetarians are less likely to avoid plant-based meat because it is UPF (40% and 43%, respectively).

The environmental impact of plant-based meat is not convincing for most people: Only one-quarter of European consumers (27%) are motivated to eat plant-based meat alternatives because of their lower environmental impact. Vegans and vegetarians (both 60%) are more likely than meat eaters (23%) to say they enjoy eating plant-based meat substitutes because they are better for the environment than meat. Consumers who consume plant-based meat and other plant-based substitutes are generally positive about their environmental impact. For these consumers, the environment is a motivation for eating these products.

Knowledge about traditional alternatives influences perception: Consumers who are more familiar with traditional plant-based substitutes such as tempeh and tofu are less likely to classify them as UPF. However, consumers who are less familiar with these products are more likely to classify them as UPFs, just as they do with plant-based meats.