UPFs condemned by health body in further blow to sector

A key health body has renewed its position that ultra-processed foods lead to negative health outcomes. While some UPFs, such as processed red meat and sweetened drinks, were definitively linked to such outcomes, others, including vegetarian alternatives, were not.

The UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) yesterday released an updated version of a 2023 position statement highlighting this connection between UPFs and adverse health outcomes, which looked at new evidence that had come to light in the intervening period.

In short, its position still stands. Ultra-processed foods, according to the definition put forth by the Nova classification, are still linked to adverse health comes in SACN’s view.

What evidence links UPFs to adverse health outcomes?In this update, SACN took into account a range of studies published in the intervening period, only using those that worked with Nova.

Looking at 10 prospective cohort studies, SACN found that UPFs including processed meat and animal products and sweetened drinks were linked to poor health outcomes. However, UPF categories including vegetarian alternatives were not.

Furthermore, one randomised control trial found people gained more weight on a UPF than a non-UPF diet.

SACN stressed that it continues to find the association between UPFs and adverse health outcomes “concerning.”

While it views the Nova classification as limited, it suggests that there may be the potential for new subcategories within it, in addition to processing, based on nutritional composition, which could improve its accuracy.

What were the limitations?Nevertheless, SACN reiterated there were some flaws in the research it had analysed.

SACN’s 2023 research stated that it was unclear whether foods categorised as UPFs were linked to adverse health outcomes due to processing or to nutrition. These limitations remained in its rapid update in 2025.

Studies also failed to account for other factors such as body mass index and socioeconomic status.

Some study authors also reported the difficulty of applying the Nova Classification, and the difficulty of ascertaining the role of UPFs in long-term health outcomes.

Finally, available evidence also remains almost exclusively observational, SACN explains.

What are SACN’s recommendations? The UK’s Eatwell Guide, which is based on advice from SACN, already suggests that certain UPFs such as biscuits, cakes, confectionary, ice cream and crisps are not part of a healthy or balanced diet, and that moderating intake of processed red meat, salt, saturated fat and free sugars is advised.

Now, SACN reiterates this advice, suggesting that the UK government should explore strategies and actions to implement them.

For example, it argues the government should compel industry to make processing data available publicly, in order to enable monitoring and further research.

Publicly available data will allow it to monitor the composition of products for additives such as emulsifiers and non-sugar sweeteners, in order to ascertain whether there is a link between additives themselves and adverse health outcomes, as well as specific processing methods used by industry.

It should also consider whether messaging on processing could improve dietary intakes without any unintended adverse consequences.

Finally, it should monitor individual consumption of emulsifiers and non-sugar sweeteners.

SACN will keep the topic under annual review and look at it again in 2026.