The case of ultra-processed foods

An analysis by Sherlock, Food Sherlock

Humans are strange creatures. They crave truth, but they love illusion. This paradox is particularly evident in the food world: under the buzzword "ultra-processed foods"—UPFs for short.

A new report with the catchy title "How brands can navigate the ultra-processed backlash" attempts to provide the industry with guidance on how to fend off criticism without fundamentally changing actual practices. It's an interesting document—not for its solutions, but for its contradictions.

Chapter I: The definition – or what is considered to be the definition

Let's start with the obvious: Nobody really knows what UPFs actually are. The so-called NOVA classification attempts to systematize them, but its boundaries are as blurry as an English fog.

A yogurt with vitamins – ultra-processed. A simple bread from the supermarket – the same. An industrially produced cookie with five ingredients? Well, that depends on who you ask. It's not scientifically clear. And therein lies the first mistake: The discussion is using terms that, upon closer inspection, dissolve like sugar in tea.

Chapter II: The industry’s reflex

Instead of enlightenment, appeasement follows. The industry responds – as so often – not with honesty, but with reinterpretation. "Fewer ingredients" is the new credo. They present ice cream with five ingredients, chocolate syrup without syrup, and cornflakes that can be reduced to a single ingredient.

A brilliant move. Because it doesn't demonstrate a new health awareness—rather, it demonstrates the art of presenting the same product in a new light. The deception lies not in the content, but in the presentation.

Chapter III: The clean label – and what it conceals

The "clean label" movement isn't progress, but a diversionary tactic. Instead of additives that require declaration, enzymes or "natural alternatives" are now used, which—as if by chance—do not have to be declared.

This doesn't make a food better—it just becomes quieter. And nothing is more dangerous than a product that claims to be harmless while evading scrutiny.

Chapter IV: Hyper-Palatable – a comfortable myth

A new buzzword is making the rounds: hyper-palatable foods . Foods that are supposedly "too tasty" and are therefore consumed in excess. This almost sounds like an accusation against the sense of taste.

But what is taste if not an interplay of biology, culture, and processing? The claim that "too good taste" is inherently suspect is as convenient as it is unfounded. It distracts from the real question: What do we eat—and why?

Chapter V: Attempting to Control the Debate

The aforementioned report ends, unsurprisingly, with a call to manufacturers to proactively "shape" the debate. Reformulate, but without losing substance. Simplify, but don't dispense with it. Communicate, but don't give too much away.

It's a walk on thin ice—and a lesson in rhetoric. The will to change ends where sales begin.

Concluding remarks

The debate about UPFs is far from over. It's diffuse, emotional, and scientifically flawed—and that's precisely why it's so dangerous. Anyone who claims to be able to replace complexity with marketing underestimates the responsible consumer—or hopes they aren't one at all.

My advice?
Don't be fooled. Not by labels, not by ingredient lists, and certainly not by promises.

As with any good investigation:
The truth is not on the surface – but beneath it.