A little over three years ago I published a three-part series that attempted to make sense of the emerging concept of Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs). Since then, I have looked at UPFs from almost every conceivable angle.
We’ve covered a lot of ground in three years. But since this is an evolving space, there is always something more to say. In fact, as I sat down to write what I thought would be a quick overview of the changes over the past three years, I realised there was a lot more to say than I had originally anticipated.
So, we’re going to do a deep-dive. A four-part (!!) series covering the things we know, the things we don’t know, and the things we didn’t want to know about the state of UPFs in 2026.
I’m calling this my State Of The Union Address.
Here’s how it’s going to go down.
Where are we now? Part one, which is what you’re reading now, will situate us in the here and now and will look at how much of our diet is made up of UPFs, what definition(s) we are using (and why they're so slippery), and give a bit of an update about what is happening socially, culturally, academically, and politically. This will ground the conversations we’re going to have over the next three weeks. I’m going to introduce my ‘kitchen sink’ theory of nutrition and why we can never really know what a UPF is.
Paradigm shift, or just a shit paradigm? Part two will explore the major scientific developments over the past few years and grapple with whether or not UPFs are a helpful construct. We’ll get a little nerdy; I want you to go away with a good sense of what scientists agree on, and where there are still some unresolved tensions.
Nature, nostalgia, and Sheryl Sandberg - how the food industry is responding to UPFs. Part three, I think, is where the really interesting stuff is happening. I find it very funny watching the food industry try to square the UPF circle. Here I’ll share some of the tactics they’re using, which reveal inconsistencies, loopholes, and how the house always wins.
The personal (responsibility) is political. Part four will be an exploration of how the hybrid scientific-political project of UPF ‘activism’ may be deepening inequality and increasing stigma along the lines of gender, class, and race by further entrenching ideas about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods.
Just a couple of notes. First of all, I’m not going to discuss UPFs in relation to feeding kids at this point; it’s something I’d really like to look at more closely but is its own mammoth undertaking. So for now I’m going to concentrate mostly on adults. I’m also going to focus mostly on the UK context, but tapping in my colleagues in the US, Jessica Wilson and Virginia Sole-Smith, for their great analyses from across the pond. Please feel free to share interesting takes from other parts of the world in the comments.Lastly, my analysis is less focussed on food systems as a whole (meaning things like sustainability, commodity crops and subsidies and so on). I’m a nutritionist with a background in social science and I’m interested in how UPFs are functioning discursively. For important discussions about food systems see Growing Cultures and Table Debates, among others. Again, feel free to share more resources in the comments.
Ok, let’s do this!
The State Of UPFs In The UK
In the UK, it is estimated that around 57% of our diet (by calories) is made up of ultra-processed food. Our UPF consumption is topped only by the US (natch). I’ll talk more about the relationship with health next week, but I think it’s important to understand what this ~57% figure really means. Although this number seems to have made headlines over the past few years, it’s not, in fact, a new phenomenon. Evidence suggests that UPF consumption has remained consistent for around 20 years. I say this to contextualise the conversation, which is often framed in the media as something novel and urgent that demands immediate action. But I could also argue that this might indicate a sort of ‘ceiling effect’ - like maybe we’re kind of maxed out on UPF? Idk, just spitballing here. Anyways, another important point to note is food sales data of UPFs (in kg per capita) shows that more than half – greater than fifty per cent!! – comes from sweetened drinks (flag that for next week!!).
The Food Standards Agency Consumer Insights Tracker reported in August 2026 (using data collected between April-June 2026) that 78% of respondents said they were concerned about ultra-processed foods and 76% were concerned about the quality of food, whereas 91% were concerned about the cost of food.
There have been a number of developments in terms of the UK Government's response to the issue of UPFs, although, as far as I can tell, no policy action has been taken so far. Here’s a rundown of the major events:
In 2023, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) – the independent scientific body that advises the UK Government on nutrition – reviewed the evidence that was available up until that point on UPFs. They produced a position statement that concluded that, while available evidence was concerning, there remained a number of methodological issues that limited the applicability of the findings. Furthermore, existing UK dietary guidelines already de-emphasise foods that could be considered UPF and encourage less processed foods (it’s unclear what difference changing dietary guidelines would make in practical terms). They also made a few research recommendations.
Two years later, and in light of new research on UPFs, SACN produced a rapid evidence update summary. SACN reiterated existing advice on processed foods, particularly on minimising intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and avoiding high intakes of red and processed meat. They also made some more specific recommendations for industry to make their processing methods more transparent, and to monitor intakes of artificial sweeteners and emulsifiers.
In July 2024, The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology produced this report for briefing MPs - it’s all over the place and does not instill much confidence tbh.
In October 2024, a report from the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee recommended that the Government should ‘more tightly regulate the sale of ultra-processed foods, which include sweetened breakfast cereals, carbonated soft drinks, and reconstituted meat products’, alongside recommendations to tax products high in salt and sugar, and to ban any advertising on ‘unhealthy’ foods.
The Government responded but didn’t really commit to anything new or different, particularly with regards to UPFs.
Just last week, minutes from a SACN meeting on UPFs were leaked: they apparently show that the committee feels as though the quality of the evidence has improved, but there are still gaps in our understanding.
In response, Dolly van Tulleken (who is married to Xand van Tulleken, Chris’s twin brother), told The Grocer that the UPF industry should not be involved in setting any policy agenda – SACN has faced scrutiny because some of its members have received industry funding, calling into question its impartiality. Regardless, DvT reportedly said that keeping industry away from food policy is ‘the most important policy any government could embed’. I’m not a policy expert but even I know that’s a wild hill to die on.
In November 2025, British medical journal, The Lancet produced a special issue dedicated to UPFs. The issue consisted of an editorial by the editors of The Lancet, a collection of three new research articles, comments, a profile of Carlos Monteiro (the architect of UPFs), and an infographic. While there have been a number of publications over the past few years, this one, I think, was the most high profile of all. However, although there were three new research articles in this series, only one was publishing original evidence looking at the relationship between UPF intake and health outcomes. The others were reviews of existing literature. We’ll refer back to this series over the next few weeks, so I wanted to mention it upfront. I have some concerns with this series, but it was good to see the authors engaging in good faith with some of the concerns and criticism that have been raised, particularly in the paper Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence; the first of the three research articles, and the only one with new analysis. I wasn’t always entirely convinced by their responses – there was some downplaying and dusting off going on - we'll look at these more closely next week. However, one of these criticisms deals with the vagueness of the term UPF, which can lead to issues of misclassification and questions the functional utility of the term. And this is what we’re going to spend most of our time looking at today.
