The UPF debate on Plant-Based Foods

The topic of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is not new, but has in recent years gained increasing attention, especially among consumers, who are now more aware of the impact of food on their health. A regular consumption of UPFs has been associated with an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic conditions. To combat these effects, several countries have introduced regulatory policies, such as taxes on specific ingredients (such as sugar) and labelling requirements.

UPFs are products that have undergone extensive industrial, mechanical, and chemical processing to improve their taste, texture, safety, and prolong their shelf-life. These foods are most commonly classified according to the NOVA system, which divides them into four groups according to the extent of processing:

Group 1: minimally processed or unprocessed foods, without additives (fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, eggs, legumes, and dried fruit/nuts)
Group 2: ingredients derived from Group 1 foods, such as vegetable oils and animal fats.
Group 3: Group 1 and 2 foods processed with salt, sugar, or oil, or preserved through fermentation, curing, or smoking.
Group 4: products with several processing steps and additives (colourants, flavourings, emulsifiers, preservatives, etc.) often rich in sugar, fats, or salt, such as snacks, pre-packed baked goods, ice cream, and ready meals.

According to the report entitled “How brands can navigate the ultraprocessed backlash” by Fi Global Insights, consumers perceive UPFs in different ways: around 65% of Europeans still consume them, despite considering them unhealthy. What’s more, many people do not know which foods fall within this category: only a minority are aware that it includes common products such as sugary breakfast cereals, snack foods, and pre-packed bread.

Reformulation Strategies to avoid UPF Backlash

To make UPFs healthier, companies are adopting well-known strategies, such as the “clean label” trend, which favours shorter, easier-to-understand lists of ingredients, featuring those that are familiar to consumers.

Some ingredients are gaining recognition for their properties and acceptance. Food enzymes, for instance, improve texture, appearance, and shelf-life, do not appear on the label and can substitute artificial additives. Some gums, however, such as carrageenan, are less frequently used due to safety concerns, while others (like acacia gum, gellan gum, and guar gum) are perceived as more natural.

The most common strategies include:

Reduction in the number of ingredients: improves the perception of a product, but not always its nutritional quality.
Fewer additives: by eliminating them or substituting them with enzymes, with more information about the properties of such enzymes. It is essential, however, to consider the implications for food safety, preservation, and food waste (for example a shorter shelf-life).

Plant-based products in the UPF debate

Plant-based alternatives are often labelled as UPFs, although this classification can be misleading, as such products often have a good nutritional profile in terms of dietary fibre, unsaturated fats, and proteins.

A study conducted in Germany on 142 university students (average age 20 ± 1.6 years), divided into vegans, vegetarians and omnivores, analysed the nutritional value of their diets in relation to the consumption of UPFs and plant-based alternatives. The results show that UPFs provide approx. 49% of the daily energy intake in all groups, but contain lower amounts of protein, dietary fibre, and micronutrients than less-processed foods. Compared to animal products, plant-based alternatives offer more fibre and less saturated fat, but lower amounts of protein and micronutrients. Even with extra nutrients, the intake of micronutrients in many people remains below recommended levels, and plant-based diets without supplementation can increase deficiency risks in young people.

These results provide ideas for improving plant-based products from a nutritional viewpoint, through targeted strategies:

Clean labelling – reduction of artificial additives and greater transparency.
Salt reduction – above all in meat and cheese substitutes.
Including whole foods in the diet – such as legumes and vegetables to increase nutritional benefits.
Fortification – with proteins, vitamins, and minerals.
Alternative fats – substitution of coconut oil with healthier options.

Although these products are still classified as UPFs, such strategies can improve the way in which they are perceived and their nutritional value, promoting more informed and healthier food choices as part of a plant-based diet.