UKRI: Making sense of ultra processed foods
21 April 2026IGD was part of the UKRI Oversight Committee on UPFs, providing feedback to ensure the report reflected the original objectives of the project.
Who UKRI are and why the dialogue was commissioned
UKRI is the single biggest investor in UK food-related research and innovation. UKRI and Sciencewise commissioned a year-long public dialogue to explore the public’s views on ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
A public dialogue is a form of engagement that allows public attitudes to be explored and feed into UKRI research and innovation programmes at an early stage.
Field work was conducted from April to September 2025 involving 132 people across all the UK’s devolved nations in seven locations, broadly reflecting the UK population.
The purpose of ‘Making sense of ultra processed foods’
We know UPFs dominate our diets making up 56% of the UK’s calories, more than comparable Europeans countries such as France (14%) and Italy (13%). This stark contrast creates a major public health question.1, 2
Studies show a correlation between UPF consumption and poorer health outcomes, but we don’t fully understand why this is the case, or whether it’s a direct or indirect correlation.3, 4
Nevertheless, consumers are changing their purchasing behaviours due to the perceptions of UPFs.
The UKRI project examined the complexities of how UPFs are perceived, their role in the food system, governance, regulation, and sources of trusted information.
Exact definitions of UPFs vary, therefore the NOVA classification was used:
“for the purpose of this survey please think about UPFs as foods for which all of the following apply:
tend to include more than 5 ingredients AND;
include ingredients which wouldn't be found in a domestic kitchen AND;
are made from substances derived from other foods AND;
include additives”
An agreed UPF definition sets the foundation for progress
The discourse respondents were shocked about how widespread UPFs are in UK diets and as a result believe comprehensive research on UPFs is needed. This included clarity on the impacts of UPFs on physical and mental health.
A major finding was that participants were struck by the lack of an agreed scientific definition of UPFs. Many felt this “groundwork” must be an urgent priority to drive research, policy, industry action and people’s consumptions.
It was felt the nuance around UPFs needs to be teased out: are there good and bad UPFs? Can UPFs be eaten as part of a healthy and sustainable diet? Interestingly, concerns were raised on tested additives such as emulsifiers, individually, to understand whether specific additives or combinations are causing harm.
The highest priority under behavioural research was to understand what the most effective ways are for shifting people towards healthy diets e.g. education strategies vs effectiveness of front-of-pack labelling,
At a systemic level, the affordability and accessibility of healthy food was deemed the most important.
Participant’s mistrusted food companies
Participants believed that power should shift from food companies to government and the public, but only when this shift is informed by scientific evidence. This request was partly due to discovering that a small number of multinational corporations dominate food choices but also because UPFs are more common in more deprived areas. small number of multinational corporations dominate food choices
People felt there’s a manipulation of language in advertising and labelling to market UPFs as healthy which enhanced mistrust in the food industry. UPF messaging was described as “insidious”, “crafty” and “lulling people into a false sense of security”.
“There was like a healthy options protein bar where it was all just really big writing telling you 9 or 10 grams of protein in a pack and high in fibre. So you’re under the illusion that you’re shopping healthy when really if you look at the ingredients it’s just bad”
— Participant quote
Nuance is required regarding to UPFs
Respondents appreciated the complexity of UPF topics, including trade-offs of convenience and affordability against the potential impacts on public health and the environment.
They also felt studies should be independent of industry influence, whilst retaining the principle of cross-sector collaboration.
Most didn’t want more dramatic policy action until the research has given us evidence for potential harms.
IGD opinion
IGD was part of the Oversight Committee, providing feedback to the dialogue and ensuring the report reflected the original objectives of the project.
Partners included FSA, DEFRA, DHSC, Devolved Governments, academic experts and industry contributed to shaping the dialogue and ensuring it captured a wide range of perspectives. This broad participation increases the likelihood that dialogue findings will inform future research agendas, support evidence-based policymaking and guide industry conversations about healthier and more sustainable food systems.
We support a science-led, consistent definition of UPFs which can guide future research, and potentially policy if stronger findings are found.
More on Health from IGD
Understanding how shoppers perceive ultra-processed foods - and the growing demand for transparency, trust and evidence - is fast becoming a commercial priority. At the Morrisons Trade Briefing on 9th June, IGD’s Laura Jacobson, Retail Futures Senior Partner, will explore how retailers and suppliers can translate IGD’s health insights into action.
Drawing on IGD shopper data and global case studies, Laura’s session will focus on how to make healthier choices easier for shoppers - from the fundamentals of fruit and veg and balanced diets to emerging priorities such as protein, fibre and gut health. Attendees will leave with practical ideas to increase relevance, remove friction in choice, and support shoppers to act on their health intentions.
Join the Morrisons Trade Briefing to understand how evolving health expectations are shaping Morrisons’ priorities, and what this means for your brand, range and shopper communications.