Editorial warning: in contemporary dietary habits "ultra-processed food" (UPF) has become a globally present eating pattern. The scientific community has been intensely debating the consequences of such a diet in recent years, and a new series of papers in The Lancet journal has further amplified the public discussion and political controversies. Below we provide an extended overview of the latest findings, trends, and possible solutions, with an emphasis on what is most relevant today, December 07, 2025, for public health and for readers who want to understand how this dietary pattern affects children, adults, health systems, and public policies.

What exactly are "ultra-processed" foods and why are they everywhere?

The term originates from the NOVA classification developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo. The system distinguishes four food groups according to the degree and purpose of processing: (1) unprocessed and minimally processed (e.g., fresh fruit and vegetables, unsweetened yogurt, frozen fish), (2) basic culinary ingredients (oils, salt, sugar), (3) "processed" products created by adding salt, sugar or oil from group 2 to food from group 1 (e.g., bread, cheese, canned vegetables), and (4) "ultra-processed" formulations. The latter are industrially designed products assembled from refined ingredients (starches, oils, isolated proteins) and technofunctional additives (emulsifiers, sweeteners, flavourings, colourants) with the aim of being cheap, long-lasting, "hypersavory," and extremely convenient.

Such products have become dominant in parts of retail because they bring high margins, stable logistics, and strong marketing support. At the household level, availability, low price per calorie, and convenience – especially in urban environments and busy routines – push consumers toward the choice of UPF. The result is the gradual displacement of traditional meals prepared from fresh foods. It is precisely this "replacement" of eating patterns – and not just individual ingredients – that is at the heart of the debate about public health consequences.

What the latest science says: key messages of the new Lancet series

The Lancet published a three-part series in November 2025 that synthesizes epidemiological, mechanistic, and public policy evidence on UPF. The authors conclude that a dietary pattern rich in UPF globally displaces previous ways of eating and is associated with a greater risk of a range of chronic non-communicable diseases. Compared to earlier discussions, the novelty is the scope of the data: in addition to numerous prospective cohort studies, the series relies on randomized controlled trials that suggest that texture, energy density, speed of consumption, and "hyperpalatability" encourage greater spontaneous energy intake, as well as mechanistic findings on the role of the gut microbiota, emulsifiers, and sweeteners in metabolic responses.

Separate commentaries within the series emphasize the urgency of protecting children and adolescents from food marketing and the need for "united global action" – from fiscal measures and public procurement standards to restrictions on advertising and sponsorships aimed at minors. The message is clear: without changing the incentives in the food system, individual recommendations will have a limited effect, and health inequalities will continue to deepen.

The broader picture: healthy food availability, inflation, and global inequalities

Data from the SOFI 2025 report – a joint publication of FAO, WHO, UNICEF, IFAD, and the World Bank – show that in 2024, as many as 2.6 billion people could not afford a healthy diet. The global average price of a "healthy basket" was about 4.46 USD (PPP) per person per day, and from 2020 until today, food inflation consistently exceeds total inflation. Increased prices for fruit, vegetables, and quality sources of protein further push households toward cheaper, energy-dense, and convenient formulations, increasing the proportion of UPF on the plates of those who are most vulnerable.

This economic dynamic explains why the response to UPF is more than a matter of personal choice. It is about the design of the entire food system – from tax and agricultural policy to advertising rules and public procurement standards. Measures that reduce the relative price of fresh foods, encourage short supply chains, and restrict the marketing of nutritionally poor products have the potential to simultaneously improve health outcomes and affordability.

Controversies and disagreements: is NOVA "too broad" and is there such a thing as "good" UPF?

Critics warn that the NOVA classification groups very different products and that health outcomes cannot be reduced to the level of "degree of processing." Sweetened beverages and whole grain cereals enriched with fiber can fall into the same group, although their potential effects differ; additionally, the term "ultra-processed" is not a legal standard, and certain additives undergo regulatory safety checks. Part of the experts therefore advocates for an approach based on nutritional profile and portion control.

On the other hand, NOVA advocates point out that the **eating pattern** is central, not the isolated ingredient. The higher the proportion of UPF in total energy, the more unfavorable the outcomes are – on average: more obesity, a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, higher cardiovascular risk, and higher overall mortality. The Lancet series synthesizes these findings and proposes a "replacement" approach: wherever possible, industrial formulations should be replaced with meals made from whole foods, whether eaten at home or in public kitchens (schools, hospitals).

Policy news: from Brazil to the United States

In 2024, Brazil defined a new national basket of essential food products ("cesta básica") by decree, which explicitly excludes ultra-processed products from tax breaks. Thus, the NOVA concept moved from dietary guidelines into fiscal instruments of social policy. At the international level, the World Health Organization launched a procedure in 2025 to develop guidelines on UPF consumption and opened a call for experts to participate; this process, however, also opened a discussion about the composition of expert groups and potential conflicts of interest, which further emphasizes the need for transparency.

In the United States, the topic is rapidly being politicized and legally channeled. In early December 2025, the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against a number of large manufacturers, claiming that their products and marketing practices contribute to the epidemic of chronic diseases and deceive consumers – especially children. Such lawsuits are reminiscent of the early stages of litigation against the tobacco industry and demonstrate how cities are using public law instruments and unfair competition laws to try to change industry practices.

What the numbers say: health risks in large populations

Large prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses in recent years consistently find an association between a higher proportion of UPF in the diet and adverse health outcomes. Estimates of premature mortality attributable to the proportion of UPF in eight countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, United Kingdom, and USA) were also published in 2025. Although such estimates do not prove causality, they show the scale of the potential problem – especially in countries with the highest proportions of UPF in the food supply.

The combination of energy density, low fiber content, ease of chewing, and extreme deliciousness ("hyperpalatability") is associated with greater spontaneous calorie intake. Part of the effect is likely mediated through changes in the gut microbiota and barrier function, but the consensus is that simpler mechanisms play the dominant role: faster consumption, higher energy intake, and weaker satiety compared to meals made from whole foods.

Children in focus: marketing, school meals, and digital platforms

Children and adolescents are exposed to intense marketing of UPF through television, social media, video games, and apps. Research consistently shows that advertising nutritionally poor food increases immediate consumption and shapes long-term preferences. The authors of The Lancet series therefore call for restrictions on advertising aimed at children, the introduction of strict standards for school canteens and public procurement, and control over sponsorships of sporting events and children's content. The emphasis is also on digital implementation: algorithmic recommendations and influencer marketing require supervision just as much as classic TV commercials.

What it means for consumers: practical choices and reading labels

For the individual, the most effective approach is simple and feasible: increase the proportion of unprocessed and minimally processed food (fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grains, fish, eggs, fermented dairy products), cook more often at home, choose short lists of ingredients, and limit products with a lot of added sugars, salt, and industrial fats. The rule for labels is: the more ingredients that do not exist in a home kitchen (e.g., emulsifiers and sweeteners in a number of categories) and the greater the number of additives – the higher the probability that it is a UPF.

This does not mean that all packaging or all convenient products should be demonized. Canned tomatoes without added sugar and salt, frozen vegetables without additives, or canned legumes without sweeteners can be nutritionally valuable, affordable, and convenient. The key is to distinguish **preservation technologies** (which often preserve nutrients and safety) from **industrial formulations** designed to replace a meal and increase energy intake.

Industry and regulators: between innovation and responsibility

Manufacturers emphasize the role of innovation – from sugar and salt reduction to new protein sources – and stress that the products comply with current safety standards. But The Lancet series and accompanying commentaries raise the question of **structural incentives**: if profit is tied to sales volume and cheap ingredients, cosmetic reformulations may not change the fundamental eating pattern. Taxes on sweetened beverages in a number of countries show that fiscal measures can encourage changes in recipes and reduce consumption; however, without a broader food policy, the effect remains limited.

Regulators walk a tightrope: UPF definitions are not yet technical standards for labeling, and the political economy of the food industry is strong at all levels – from national ministries to international organizations. Controversies surrounding the composition of expert groups and possible conflicts of interest during the development of guidelines, visible even in 2025 in the WHO process, point to the need for stronger transparency rules, public disclosure of financial interests, and the inclusion of independent scientists and consumer associations.

Schools, hospitals, and public procurement: levers of rapid change

Large public institutions – schools, kindergartens, hospitals, nursing homes – serve millions of meals every day. Introducing standards that favor unprocessed and minimally processed foods, restrict sweetened beverages and UPF snacks, and encourage seasonal menus can simultaneously improve nutrition and stimulate local supply chains. The experience of cities that introduce "healthy public kitchens" shows that redirecting the budget from UPF to fresh foods can be cost-neutral if prices are negotiated, waste is reduced, and menus are planned.

Digital misinformation and "nutri-washing"

With the growth of public interest, the dynamic of misinterpretation is also growing. Some communication channels highlight isolated studies without context or inflate mechanistic hypotheses about individual additives without consistent clinical findings. In parallel, marketing messages emphasize "source of fiber," "rich in protein," or "plant-based," while neglecting to mention that it is an industrial formulation with high energy density. Editorial standards, transparent citation of sources, and independent verification of claims are key to distinguishing science from PR.

The Croatian context: space for quick, feasible improvements

In Croatia, as in most of Europe, the proportion of UPF in the basket is growing, but eating habits still preserve "home-cooked" meals – stews, fish, fresh vegetables and fruit – which is an advantage that can be relied upon. Potential measures include: encouraging short supply chains and local markets, school meal standards that limit sweetened beverages and UPF snacks, educational campaigns on reading labels, and targeted incentives for fresh foods in low-income households. Media, nutritionists, and local communities can jointly strengthen confidence in simple meal preparation from basic foods.

How the editorial board can responsibly report on UPF

• **Precisely define terms.** Explain the difference between minimal processing (hygiene, freezing, pasteurization) and industrial formulations that replace a meal.


• **Emphasize the eating pattern.** The weight of evidence supports reducing the overall proportion of UPF instead of demonizing individual ingredients.


• **Check for conflicts of interest.** When citing experts and organizations, seek information on funding and possible industry ties.


• **Align dates.** Align all news and recommendations with the current date (December 07, 2025).


• **Provide "translatable" help to readers.** Simple lists of substitutes, quick recipes, and guides for understanding labels and ingredients.

Frequently Asked Questions: short answers without myths

**Is all "processed" food bad?** No. Minimal processing (freezing, pasteurization, canning without additives) often preserves nutrients and improves safety and availability. The problem is an eating pattern in which industrial formulations displace real food.

**Can "plant-based" UPFs be the solution?** They can help reduce the intake of red and processed meat, but the choice should be based on a short list of ingredients and a good profile of salt, fat, and protein. "Plant-based" does not automatically mean "healthy."

**Are the risks proven causally?** Epidemiology shows consistent associations, and controlled trials and mechanistic papers offer convincing explanations. However, some uncertainty remains, so recommendations are based on the precautionary principle and the promotion of whole foods.

**Is there such a thing as "healthy UPF"?** Certain convenient products (e.g., breakfast cereals with little sugar and a lot of fiber, canned legumes without additives) can fit into a healthy pattern, but it is not advisable to build a diet predominantly on industrial formulations.