It’s quite clear that ultraprocessed foods have become the latest target of avoidance for the health-conscious set. What is not quite clear, however, is which food and beverages are not processed, somewhat processed or ultraprocessed.
Discussions and debate on the benefits of lowering the consumption (and, subsequently, production) of ultraprocessed foods have increased in recent times. Pages have been written about what is and what is not ultraprocessed but, as of this writing, there is no worldwide standard. Yet, achieving the goal of fewer ultraprocessed foods and reducing the processing and ingredient loads in food and beverage products would be much easier if there were a standard set of rules to follow.
Yes, there is the Nova Food Classification system — but not every group, agency or association has accepted Nova as gospel on what is not processed versus ultraprocessed (and everything in between). The Nova system was developed and published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and breaks foods into four groups based on the amount and type of processing performed on the product.
Unprocessed or minimally processed foods fall into the first group, with unprocessed items coming directly from the plant or animal without any alteration after they’ve been harvested. Minimally processed foods include those that have gone through a processing step by which “subtraction” was the focus: cleaning, removal of inedible or unwanted parts, fractioning, grinding, drying, fermentation, pasteurization, cooling, freezing or other processes. These products do not add any substances, including oils, fats, sugar or salt, for example.
Group 2, Processed Culinary Ingredients, includes things like oils, fats, sugar and salt — products typically created through pressing, grinding, crushing, pulverizing and refining of natural foods or from nature (think syrup or honey, for instance).
The third group contains Processed Foods, which includes items from Group 1 which have had an ingredient (or more) from Group 2 applied to them to preserve them or make them more palatable. Processed foods, according to Nova’s definition, typically have two to three ingredients.
Finally, Group 4 houses ultraprocessed foods, which are defined as “industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyper-palatable).” Foods found in Group 1 are found only in small proportions in these products, if they are present at all.
Land of confusion
Even with the detail into which the Nova standard goes, it is not universally accepted — the World Health Organization (WHO) and other groups do, but USDA doesn’t recognize it as standard. And that has led to confusion among consumers who are increasingly interested in the level of processing happening to the foods they eat.
“Despite the fact that the term ‘ultraprocessed’ is more commonplace, there is still no scientifically agreed upon definition for ultraprocessed food,” explains Sarah Gallo, senior vice president for product policy and federal affairs at Consumer Brands Assn. (www. consumerbrandsassociation.org). “Because of that, it’s really premature to make any dietary recommendations for the American public.”
To make matters cloudier, Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Danish pharmaceutical company behind GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, this spring announced it was interested in defining UPFs — which raised a few eyebrows.
Chef Andrew Hunter is head of culinary development for Wolfgang Puck Worldwide, executive chef for Niman Ranch, global development chef for Kikkoman, and the culinary innovation partner for The Mushroom Council (www.chefandrewhunter.com). He believes the definition for what is less-processed versus ultraprocessed isn’t the primary issue when it comes to food and beverage companies being prepared to adjust to a new normal.
“The challenge is understanding how the current administration is defining and ultimately enforcing mandates on ultraprocessed foods and our willingness as an industry to adapt,” he explains. “It's important to accept that, while the administration might be the current catalyst for mandating a shift toward less processing, consumers have been asking for similar improvements for several years.”
To Hunter, the definitions are clear, and he has worked to simplify numerous products to overcome some of the nutrition hurdles that have popped up with consumers over the years. For consumers seeking minimally processed foods, a long ingredient list filled with things they don’t recognize communicates “more processed,” whether right or wrong. And as more people read nutrition labels and ingredient lists, processors will face more challenges to support the ingredients and processes they use.
“The consumer trend for several years has been cleaner ingredient decks with lower salt, fat and sugar,” he says. “We need to work toward understanding ingredients, cooking methods and packaging that help us deliver cleaner labels with less processing.”
One certainty: act now
Salt, fat and sugar are the much-maligned, and much-relied-upon, flavor enhancers found in so many food and beverage products. And the industry knows that products with too much are in the crosshairs: consider the reaction when the FDA unveiled its proposed front-of-package nutrition box, which would call out the saturated fat, sodium and added sugars in every product for consumers to see at a glance.
These ingredients are often at the heart of the ultraprocessed argument, and processors must reassess products in their portfolios with ingredients that bump them up on the scale. Hunter says there are tools and innovations that can help kick off the effort today, and companies shouldn’t hesitate to walk down that path.
“R&D teams do have flavor-development processes at their disposal that might currently be considered unproven or unorthodox,” he says. “Now might be the right time to explore new ways to think about products and processing.”
Gallo agrees and says industry must step up, as consumers are getting mixed messages and making their own decisions, sometimes based on misinformation or misguided thinking. They’re simply trying to make the right health choices for themselves and their families and having to debate the value of different processing steps done to food and beverage products.
“Processing in and of itself does not pose a risk; processing can add vitamins, make products more shelf-stable or give access to foods we otherwise might have to pay more to get,” she explains. “Unfortunately, the more clickbait-y discussions out there ignore the benefits of processing and paint it with broad brushes, which really stands to harm consumers and possibly prevent them from accessing foods that are part of healthy diet patterns.”
Gallo cautions against moving too quickly or succumbing to labeling items without sound science or the entire picture, saying that many food and beverage products are formulated and processed to help consumers with specific needs based on health, age or ability.
“Think about fruit or foods that may be cut up to make them easier to consume,” she says. “We're talking about nutrient-dense foods that are part of healthy dietary patterns that have the potential to be demonized under a really indiscriminate system, if we're not careful.”
As with any potential changes to regulations, legislation or guidelines, one of the best things processors can do is to speak up and get involved in the discussion now. On top of the business and development part, Gallo says “there’s a really important advocacy part to play, and it’s a really critical time to talk to your elected officials.”
Meanwhile, Hunter says, processors should be working on their product lines to minimize any damage should those foods and beverages find themselves on the negative end of the processed spectrum.
“If anti-processing becomes the norm, lots of food companies will be forced to redefine their brand strategy and rearchitect their product line,” he says. “While that might be an unpopular answer, it's better to be proactive than to employ a wait-and-see strategy.”
