News

Industry efforts to steer complex UPF conversations increase

The Physicians Association for Nutrition (PAN International) and the Good Food Institute Europe (GFI Europe) have released a guide to build understanding of the relationship between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and plant-based meat.

The guide, entitled Where does plant-based meat fit in the UPF conversation? is geared towards healthcare professionals, policymakers, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The insights emerge at a pivotal time as despite interest and concerns around UPFs continuing to intensify, confusion and potential misconceptions exist in the context of plant-based meats.

“Public discourse around these products (especially newer categories like plant-based meat alternatives) has grown increasingly complex and, at times, polarised,” co-author Dr Roberta Alessandrini, director of PAN’s dietary guidelines initiative, told Ingredients Network.

Plant-based meats: ‘Not all UPFs are created equal’

Defined by the NOVA framework, UPFs are industrially produced foods with multiple ingredients and processing steps. Calls for clarification exist as categorisation is based on a product’s processing level rather than nutritional content.

PAN International and GFI Europe stated that nutritional variations exist between UPFs.

“A central takeaway [of the guide] is that not all UPFs are created equal,” said Alessandrini. Based on the currently available evidence, the guide suggests that plant-based meats cannot be categorised in the same way as other UPFs.

Additionally, the authors recognise that reformulation, particularly to decrease salt content, can significantly improve UPFs’ health profile.

“We also emphasise the importance of fortifying these products with nutrients like vitamin B12, which remains uncommon but is essential to ensuring nutritional adequacy,” she added.

‘More nuance needed’ to avoid demonising plant-based options

According to the guide, the latest research on UPFs suggests that plant-based meat can support modest weight loss, improve cholesterol levels, and result in better diet quality. It states that food processing is not inherently negative.

Manufacturers can implement certain methods to enhance protein quality, improve bioavailability, and increase nutrient fortification, providing health benefits, it adds.

A concern within the food industry around UPFs is that public confusion may limit the uptake of plant-based options. The guide’s authors hope to encourage product innovation that supports public health and sustainability goals.

“More nuance is needed in the current UPF discourse to avoid unfairly demonising plant-based meat, which could make healthier choices easier,” said lead author Amy Williams, nutrition lead at GFI Europe.

Guide designed to create clarity around UPFs

In 2024, the National Institute for Health and Care Research found that adolescents in the UK get around two-thirds (66%) of their daily calories from UPFs. Another 2024 research study in the British Medical Journal found that greater exposure to UPFs is associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes.

PAN International and GFI Europe said the guide was designed to help leaders and the industry navigate complex conversations and create clarity around UPFs.

“In the absence of clear, evidence-informed guidance, there’s a real risk that healthcare, policy, and advocacy stakeholders may reach premature or overly simplistic conclusions,” said Alessandrini.

“This could stall progress on protein diversification and erode public trust.”

The guide aims to support national public health bodies in providing clearer dietary guidance that differentiates between processing levels and nutritional quality. The organisations detail positive practices around the globe, such as the Netherlands’ approach, which includes nutrient-rich plant-based meats in its official dietary recommendations.