News

Oatly stirs debate over plant-based milk processing

Oatly has weighed into the health debate surrounding processed foods via messaging on packaging for its oat drinks.

Making reference to the ongoing debate around processed and ultra-processed foods (UPFs), the side of cartons of its barista oat drink in the UK bears the words: “Trust the processed.”

This is followed by an explanation: “When turning oats into a tasty liquid like the one you’re holding, we use clever production processes like heat treatment and homogenisation. These are also used for cow’s milk, and we guess that makes our drinks processed, which apparently can be scary for some.”

Oatly’s blurb continues: “That’s cool – food processing has been adopted by humans for centuries to reduce nutrient loss, curb food waste, and give people access to safe, nutritious, and more affordable food.”

Caroline Orfila Jenkins, vice-president (science and technology) at Oatly and professor of plant biochemistry and nutrition at the University of Leeds, said that packaging is one of the company’s “most powerful comms tools”.

She wrote on social media: “When we chose to address this topic on our pack, we anticipated debate and that’s part of the intent…

“Current opinions around UPFs are polarising, offering simplistic yet confusing narratives about food processing which are – in my view – distracting us from tackling the integrated challenges of climate change and food injustice.”

Experts divided over Oatly’s approach to UPF debate

Experts were divided over the merits of Oatly’s intervention in what proved to be one of last year’s most heated debates.

Some marketers argued that it was only likely to confuse consumers further on UPFs. Others suggested the company was side-stepping the real issue people have with processed foods, such as long lists of confusing ingredients.

Some, however, called the move bold and brave.

Susan Thomas, an independent food industry consultant who was previously sustainability director at the UK supermarket chain Asda, said it was encouraging that Oatly was challenging the “dangerous idea” that any type of processing is problematic.

“The industry could be more assertive on this,” she said.

However, the wording is “slightly patronising and also slightly mis-directive, as I expect it’s more likely to be the unfamiliar ingredients like dipotassium phosphate than the heating that may un-nerve people (and I am sure they could have explained perfectly well why that’s not actually something to worry about)”, she added.

The right mix for plant-based milks

The classification and impact of foods based on their level of processing is a live debate.

Defined under the Nova classification system, UPFs are formulations of industrial ingredients such as protein isolates, modified starches, non-nutritive sweeteners, and emulsifiers, designed for shelf stability and sensory appeal, but typically low in fibre and micronutrients and high in added sugar, salt, and saturated fat.

A key criticism of the Nova system has been that by classifying foods based on processing rather than nutrient content, the methodology groups products with varying nutritional profiles, such as flavoured yoghurt and sugary beverages, into the same category.

Plant-based milks rely on added ingredients to enhance the sensory elements and improve shelf life, and are also often fortified with micronutrients.

According to a UK analysis published in the journal Current Developments in Nutrition in June 2025, 84% of all plant-based milks were classified as ultra-processed (Nova 4), 14% as processed (Nova 3), and just 2% as minimally processed (Nova 1).

As many as 97% of the non-organic “milks” were classified as Nova 4, compared with 30% of organic ones.

Added ingredients in these plant-based milks included salt (92%), sugar (26%), flavours (33%), stabilsers (66%), emulsifiers (24%), and acidity regulators (77%), the team from the University of Hertfordshire found.

Past research has showed the ingredients most commonly added to these drinks are salt, sugar, tricalcium phosphate, and gellan gum. The latter is, for example, the stabiliser used by Rude Health in its oat barista drink, along with water, gluten-free oats (13%), sunflower oil, and sea salt.

“You wouldn’t chuck artificial nasties into your espresso machine; we don’t pout them into our drinks,” the company’s cartons read.

Amy Williams, a science communication expert at the Good Food Institute (GFI), which supports the market for alternative proteins, praised the intervention from Oatly.

“I like companies standing by their choices and offering greater transparency rather than just being cowed into going ‘clean label’ at the expense of important things like fortification,” she said.

However, she wondered if consumer education were best left to nutritionists.

Cause for concern but confusion reins

In November 2025, the first paper in a three-part series on UPF research and policy, published in The Lancet, acknowledged critiques of Nova’s scope and granularity but defended the classification’s policy utility.

UPFs, the authors argued, differ from traditional processed foods not only in composition but in their function within food systems, where they displace whole and minimally processed foods and promote overconsumption.

Studies have identified an association between higher consumption of UPFs and adverse health outcomes.

However, it remains unclear whether this association is due to the “processing”, including the addition of ingredients that are chemically synthesised, or because processed foods naturally tend to be higher in calories, saturated fat, salt, and/or sugar.

The authors of The Lancet paper noted: “The totality of the evidence supports the thesis that displacement of long-established dietary patterns by ultra-processed foods is a key driver of the escalating global burden of multiple diet-related chronic diseases.”

While the review identified strong associations between UPF consumption and a wide range of health outcomes, it stopped short of asserting direct causality.