How ultra-processed food firms hoodwink us into thinking their products are ‘healthier’ than others

New research presented at the International Congress on Obesity (ICO2026), hosted by the World Obesity Federation (WOF) in Mexico City, Mexico, July 15–17, shows how various sectors representing the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry use tactics to deny the health risks associated with these products, including attempting to reframe their particular UPFs as healthier and somehow different from others.

The study presents preliminary findings from an analysis by Margarita Otero Alvarez, a doctoral student at the University of Nevada Reno in Reno, Nevada, and a Vital Strategies Healthy Food Policy Fellow; Associate Professor Eric Crosbie of the University of Nevada Reno; and Professor Laura Schmidt of the University of California, San Francisco.

UPFs are industrially formulated products made mostly from extracted substances (like fats, starches and sugars) and additives (like artificial flavors, colors and emulsifiers). They often lack whole foods, are engineered to be hyperpalatable and have been linked to obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

In July 2025, the U.S. government requested public input to help establish a UPF definition to guide future research and policy—the comment period was open until Oct. 23, 2025, and responses are publicly available.

Given the industry input, the authors decided to examine how different food and beverage industry (F&BI) segments articulate distinct “UPF realities” and how these constructed understandings shape their positions on how UPFs should be defined.

Their aim was to provide a nuanced and detailed understanding of key F&BI UPF strategies across the commodity chain, helping strengthen public health advocacy as UPF debates continue across policy contexts.

The team examined public comments from corporate interest groups submitted in response to the U.S. government’s request to define UPFs. They considered the various corporate interest groups represented in these comments (e.g., primary production, manufacturing, research/science communication) and product and ingredient categories (e.g., dairy, baked goods, vegetable oil).

Submissions in the study sample came mostly from the primary production/ingredients category (42%; e.g., International Sweeteners Association), followed by manufacturing/retail (22%; e.g., Danone), research/science communication (12%; e.g., Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences [IAFNS]) and actors with interests in the general F&BI (9%; e.g., Food Industry Association).

Among primary producers and manufacturers, soybean and dairy were the most represented, respectively.

Across segments, these different groups had broadly similar arguments:

1. Framing UPFs as not inherently unhealthy, arguing that processing and additives are safe and subject to existing government regulation;
2. Advocating for a nutrient-based and total-diet approach over processing- or ingredient-based classification systems;
3. Criticizing the NOVA classification (a widely used classification that categorizes foods into four groups based on the nature, extent and purpose of their industrial processing);
4. Claiming UPF categorization contradicts current regulatory frameworks and guidance (e.g., new “healthy” claims, dietary guidelines).

Researchers identified a key position among a subset of corporate interest groups, including manufacturers, in which actors sought to avoid UPF categorization by differentiating their specific products (e.g., plant-based, dairy, cereals) from “unhealthy” UPFs (effectively, “my UPF is healthier than yours”).

Alternatively, several actors promoted food categorization frameworks with potential conflicts of interest. An example is the IAFNS Principles, which were developed by a working group convened by IAFNS.

The Principles are also problematic because they essentially call for more causal evidence before moving forward, dismissing the substantial existing body of evidence on the harmful effects of UPFs—a common industry tactic for delaying regulatory action in the sector.

Manufacturers used positive product framing, asserting that their specific products support public health objectives and contribute to balanced diets (e.g., low- or no-calorie sweetened beverages as hydration sources).

The American Beverage Association contributed this statement: “Given the significant levels of underhydration in the U.S. population and the recognized potential for underhydration or dehydration to have negative health impacts, it is vital that Americans be encouraged to increase (and maintain adequate levels of) hydration and that they be given readily accessible, appealing beverage options to help them achieve that goal.”

Within research/science communication, views diverged on the need and appropriateness of a definition, with some actors aiming to delay the definition-setting process by calling for more research on the specific health-impacting attributes of UPFs before establishing a definition.

The authors conclude that, while UPF positions are fairly aligned (e.g., UPFs are not unhealthy, processing/ingredients are safe, nutrient and total-diet approaches are preferred, NOVA criticism), there are nuanced differences across F&BI segments.

They say, “Importantly, some food and beverage industry actors leveraged a differentiation strategy if they perceived their products as comparatively healthier than their ‘unhealthy’ counterparts.”

Examples include:

Danone: “…consumers are good at discerning more and less healthful categories of foods… foods such as potato chips, cookies, snacks, soda, hot dogs or deli meats are seen on one end as foods to avoid…”

“consumers do not perceive foods such as fortified plant-based milks… as ‘ultra-processed.'”

Plant Based Foods Association: “Plant-based alternatives … are fundamentally different from foods like chips, candy, and sugary drinks.” “we urge you to focus … on true nutrient-poor ‘junk foods.'”

Kellogg: “cereal consumption of all types … is associated with decreased risk of developing chronic diseases compared to other processed foods.”

The authors explain, “Unlike other food and beverage industry regulations, where actors may act more as a cohesive bloc due to shared exposure, the ingredient/process-based nature of UPF classification may create conditions under which fragmentation (distancing one’s own products from the ‘unhealthy UPFs’) is more strategically advantageous than solidarity with food and beverage industry peers.”

Schmidt adds, “There is a lot of anticipation in the U.S. about the overdue release of a federal definition of UPF following this and other consultations. The announcement of a federal definition has been delayed, and it is our understanding that it has been proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is awaiting approval from the executive branch.”

Provided by
World Obesity Federation (WOF)

Who’s behind this story?

Sadie Harley

BSc Life Sciences & Ecology. Microbiology lab background with pharmaceutical news experience in oil, gas, and renewable industries.

Full profile →

Advertisements

Andrew Zinin

Master’s in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X’s editorial success.

Full profile →