News release

From: World Obesity Federation (WOF)

‘My ultraprocessed food is better than yours’ – the many tactics used by UPF industry to deny health risks

·       US government still yet to provide formal definition of UPF despite consultation

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

The study, which contains the preliminary findings of the analysis, is by Margarita Otero Alvarez, doctoral student at the University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA and Vital Strategies* Healthy Food Policy Fellow, Associate Professor Eric Crosbie, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA, and Professor Laura Schmidt, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.

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

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

Given the various 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 in this analysis 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 US 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), across product/ingredient categories (e.g., dairy, baked goods, vegetable oil).

Submissions in the study sample were mostly provided by 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, subject to existing government regulation; 2) advocating for a nutrient-based and total-diet approach over processing- or ingredient-based classification systems; 3) criticising the NOVA classification (a wildely used classification that categorises foods into four groups based on the nature, extent, and purpose of their industrial processing); and 4) claiming UPF categorisation 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, where actors sought to avoid UPF categorisation 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 categorisation frameworks with potential conflicts of interest. An example is the IAFNS Principles, which were developed by a Working Group convened and funded by IAFNS –an industry-funded nonprofit. Moreover, several of the Principles’ contributing authors disclosed financial ties to food-industry groups (e.g., the Calorie Control Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Potatoes USA, Soy Nutrition Institute, McCormick). 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-/no-calorie sweetened beverages as hydration sources). The American Beverage Asssociation contributed this statement: "Given the significant levels of underhydration in the U.S. population and the recognised 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/appropriateness of a definition, 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 approach 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.”

Professor Schmidt adds: “"There is a lot of anticipation in the US  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 is that it has been proposed by US Department of Health and Human Services, and awaiting approval from the executive branch."

*Vital Strategies is a global public health organization that works with governments and non-governmental organizations around the world to strengthen public health systems and advance policies that help people live longer, healthier lives. We partner with countries to turn data into action, combining technical expertise, strategic communication and on-the-ground support to address their most pressing health challenges.

https://www.vitalstrategies.org/

This press release is based on a poster abstract at the International Congress on Obesity (ICO) in Mexico City, Mexico, 15-17 July. The material has been peer reviewed by the congress selection committee. There is no full paper at this stage and the work has not yet been submitted to a medical journal for publication