If you're in food or beverage manufacturing, you've felt the shift. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are dominating consumer conversations, Google searches have exploded, and more than 6 in 10 Americans say they're actively trying to avoid UPFs at least some of the time.
As a result, your R&D teams are fielding questions. Your marketing departments are navigating new claims. And your executives are probably wondering: what does this mean for our portfolio?
Here's the challenge: We don't actually have a clear, agreed-upon definition of what ultra-processed food really means. And that's creating both risk and opportunity for manufacturers willing to lead.
When consumers talk about ultra-processed foods, they're usually referencing the NOVA classification system developed in 2009 by researchers at the University of São Paulo. NOVA categorizes foods into four groups, with Group 4 being labeled as "ultra-processed."
But here's what product developers need to understand: NOVA was designed to study dietary patterns across populations, not to evaluate individual products.
The implications are significant:
"The perception can be that ‘junk food’ and ultra-processed foods are equivalent,” said Julia Wolfson, PhD, MPP, associate professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of International Health, in a recent study. “Yet ultra-processed foods encompass many more products than just junk food or fast food, including most of the foods in the grocery store."
Source: Yale School of Public Health
Even nutrition specialists struggle to consistently categorize foods using NOVA criteria when given the same ingredient information. If the experts can't agree, how can you reformulate with confidence? How can you communicate meaningfully with consumers?
This definitional gap is precisely why brands are struggling to respond to consumer demand — and why there's a massive opportunity for manufacturers who help bring clarity to the conversation.
Despite the classification challenges, the health data demands attention from a risk management perspective. A 2024 umbrella review in the British Medical Journal examined 45 studies covering 10 million participants, and found UPF consumption linked to 32 adverse health conditions — including increased mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and mental health disorders. The research shows a dose-response relationship: more UPF consumption correlates with worse health outcomes.
For manufacturers, this means the reputation of processed foods is shifting. Today's consumers have concerns in five key areas:
But here's the critical context: 57% of American adults' calories (and 67% of children's daily calories) come from ultra-processed foods. Cost and convenience are the top purchase drivers, with cost being the primary consideration for lower-income households and convenience being the leading factor for higher-income shoppers.
Your consumers aren't going to stop buying packaged foods. They want packaged foods they can trust and feel good about. And in that, there is opportunity.
Here's where manufacturers often get stuck: they know consumers want "less processed" foods, but without clear standards, how do you reformulate? What changes actually matter?
The biggest hurdles manufacturers face:
The good news? Research shows it's possible to create nutritious products even with processing. A USDA study designed a seven-day diet where 91% of calories came from ultra-processed foods that met or exceeded nutritional requirements for most nutrients, scoring an 86 on the Healthy Eating Index.
The takeaway isn't that processing is fine. Rather, it's that nutrient density matters more than processing level alone. Your reformulation strategy should prioritize both.
30% of global food and beverage launches featured a clean-label claim in the past year. Instead of trying to eliminate all processing, focus on these principles that align with emerging consumer expectations.
Prioritize recognizable ingredients: Consumers should be able to decipher the ingredients in your product without needing multiple Google searches.
Eliminate questionable additives: Start with ingredients banned in the EU or flagged by major retailers.
Preserve the food matrix: Choose processing methods that maintain nutrient bioavailability.
Enhance nutrient density: Processing should add value, not just shelf life.
Be transparent about functionality: If an ingredient serves a purpose but is not immediately identifiable by the everyday consumer, explain it clearly.
Here's what the research makes clear: Eliminating all processed foods isn't just unrealistic — it doesn't help consumers. Your communication strategy should acknowledge:
The most effective approach? Focus on what you're adding (nutrients, whole ingredients, transparency) rather than defending what you're not removing.
The definitional vacuum won't last forever. Standards are being developed right now that will shape how UPF is understood and regulated:
The question isn't whether standards will emerge — it's whether you'll help shape them or react to them. Early movers have the advantage. Brands that engage now in developing meaningful, achievable standards will be positioned to lead rather than scramble.
The manufacturers who will thrive through this shift are those who:
The conversation about ultra-processed food isn't going away. Consumer concern is legitimate, health research is compelling, and regulatory momentum is building.
But the path forward isn't about vilifying all food manufacturing. It's about making the packaged foods that feed millions of people every day work better for human health. The manufacturers who recognize this moment as an opportunity to innovate, lead, and help define what "better" means will be the ones consumers trust and choose.
Want to learn more about the ultra-processed foods market and consumer expectations?