Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are sparking a lot of discussions in the nutrition world. These factory-made products, like chips, ready meals, and sugary drinks, are linked to health issues like obesity and even dementia. Experts believe these foods are “designed to make us eat more,” tapping into our brain’s reward systems to push us to consume more than we need.
Policymakers have started suggesting measures like warning labels and taxes. But do these solutions really address the core issues?
To dive deeper, my colleagues and I studied what drives people to enjoy and overeat certain foods. We analyzed the responses of over 3,000 adults in the UK regarding more than 400 everyday foods. Our findings offer a fresh perspective that goes beyond the typical UPF narrative.
We often mix up liking a food with overeating it for pleasure. Liking is tied to taste, while hedonic overeating is all about the enjoyment that leads someone to keep eating even when they aren’t hungry. For instance, most people enjoy porridge but don’t binge on it. In contrast, chocolate and ice cream are often linked to both high enjoyment and overeating.
In our study, we asked participants to rate their preferences for various foods—from jacket potatoes to custard creams. We compared their answers to the foods’ nutritional content, how they were classified as UPFs, and how participants perceived them (like sweetness or healthiness).
We found some expected results: people liked foods they ate regularly, and high-calorie foods tended to lead to overeating. Yet, we were surprised to see the significant impact of personal beliefs. Foods perceived as sweet or fatty increased the chance of overeating, regardless of their actual nutritional value. In fact, we identified that beliefs and perceptions contributed to a substantial portion of the reasons behind overeating.
Interestingly, just labeling a food as “ultra-processed” didn’t add much predictive power to our analysis. Once we factored in how people viewed the food and its nutritional content, classification as UPF explained very little about genuine eating behavior. While many UPFs are indeed high in calories and low in fiber, the classification isn’t always helpful. It combines very different products, from sugary drinks to healthy fortified cereals.
This generalization can be misleading. Some UPFs may indeed have health benefits, particularly for older adults or those needing convenient meal options. Reducing all UPFs to a single negative label simplifies a complex issue. People don’t just consider food labels; they think about taste, emotions, and social factors when eating.
Relying heavily on UPF classifications for policy could lead people away from foods that could be beneficial. For example, wholegrain cereals might get unfairly sidelined due to their processing level. Instead, we should focus more on educating people about their food choices, helping them understand what promotes satisfaction and drives cravings.
Here are some suggested steps:
- Enhance food literacy: Teach individuals about what makes food satisfying and help them identify their own cues for overeating.
- Prioritize thoughtful product design: Create foods that are enjoyable and nutritious, rather than relying on bland “diet” options.
- Consider diverse motivations for eating: Acknowledge that people eat for reasons beyond hunger, like comfort and socializing.
Not all UPFs are problematic, but the straightforward classification of foods as “bad” based on their processing isn’t sufficient. Eating habits are shaped by various psychological and social factors. With the right information and understanding, we can support healthier and more enjoyable eating choices. After all, the way we perceive food is just as crucial as its actual contents. If we want to encourage better eating habits, we should focus more on these perceptions and the motivations behind our food choices.
