Nutrition experts are calling for a fundamental rethink of how we classify and discuss ultra-processed foods, arguing that current approaches may be too simplistic and potentially misleading for consumers.
The Problem with Current Classification Systems
According to researchers speaking at a recent briefing by the Science Media Centre, the Nova classification system - which categorises foods based on their level of processing - fails to capture important nutritional differences between various ultra-processed products. Professor Janet Cade from the University of Leeds highlighted that this system groups together foods with vastly different health impacts under the same umbrella.
The debate comes amid growing public concern about ultra-processed foods, with recent surveys showing nearly two-thirds of Britons are actively trying to reduce their consumption. However, scientists now suggest this blanket approach might be counterproductive.
Evidence Challenges Simple Narratives
Dr Kiara Chang of Imperial College London presented research indicating significant limitations in current evidence linking ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes. Many studies fail to adequately account for other factors that influence health, such as overall dietary patterns, lifestyle choices, and socioeconomic status.
Researchers emphasised that some foods classified as ultra-processed can actually form part of a healthy diet. Wholemeal bread, plant-based meat alternatives, and infant formula were cited as examples of nutritionally valuable products that current classification systems might misleadingly categorise alongside less healthy options.
Towards a More Sophisticated Approach
Experts propose moving beyond simple processing labels to consider multiple factors when evaluating food products. They recommend assessing:
- Nutritional composition and ingredient quality
- The purpose and necessity of processing methods
- Overall dietary patterns rather than individual products
- Practical considerations for different consumer groups
The researchers stopped short of suggesting that processing level doesn't matter, but argued for a more balanced perspective that considers both nutritional content and processing methods. This approach would help consumers make more informed choices without unnecessarily restricting access to convenient, affordable, and nutritious food options.
As Professor Cade concluded, We need to help people understand the complexity rather than giving them simple rules that might be misleading. The call for nuance comes at a critical time, with the government considering how to incorporate the latest evidence into future public health guidance and food policies.
