Report: ‘Ultra-Processed’ Classification Does Not Reliably Indicate Nutritional Value
A report commissioned by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) suggests that “ultra-processed food” (UPF) classification does not reliably predict nutrient density.
The study quantified the prevalence of processed foods in U.S. retail grocery purchases and analyzed nutrient density within and across food processing classifications using the NOVA classification system (from where the common UPF definition originates) and the Nutrient Rich Food Index 6.3 (NRF6.3). More than 40,000 food products spanning cereal, fresh dairy, prepared meals, and produce were included in the analysis.
UPFs Dominate U.S. Grocery Purchases
Across food categories considered “core” to family shopping, UPFs (NOVA Category 4 foods) accounted for the majority of food purchases, per the analysis. UPFs made up approximately three-quarters of total U.S. food and beverage sales, with grocery/shelf-stable and frozen departments representing more than 70 percent of that volume. Ultra-processed cereals comprised 92 percent of total cereal sales and 85 percent of all cereal items. Prepared meals (96 percent of sales, 90 percent of items) showed similar UPF representation, while snack foods (76 percent of sales, 74 percent of items) had lower ultra-processed ratios.
Based on this finding, IFIC asserted in the report that “…dietary recommendations and discussions about significantly reducing or eliminating [UPFs] must be grounded in the realities of current consumer behavior, rather than treating these products as easily avoidable, given current purchase behaviors.”
Ultra-Processed Does Not Mean Nutritionally Devoid
Although nutrient density scores were higher among non-UPFs, across all categories, nutrient density spanned wide ranges regardless of processing classification, indicating that both higher- and lower-nutrient density options exist within each group. In cereal, fresh dairy, prepared meals, and snacks, the upper end of the nutrient density range for UPFs exceeded that of non-ultra-processed products, suggesting that some UPFs deliver equal or greater nutrient density than less-processed options within the same food category. This finding was especially relevant to the cereals category.
Less-Processed Foods are Less Affordable
The analysis also found that non-UPFs carry a consistent price premium of approximately 16 percent, relative to UPFs. This price difference is even more stark among national brands, with non-UPFs priced roughly 22 percent higher on average, compared to the 8 percent premium among private brands. For specific commodities, ultra-processed dairy products were priced 7.5–10.5 percent lower than their less-processed counterparts, and ultra-processed snacks were up to 18 percent cheaper than other options within the category.
Interestingly, when weighted by purchasing frequency and expenditure, ultra-processed cereals in the highest nutrient density tier had higher nutrient density scores than non-ultra-processed cereals in the highest tier, and were also 22–25 percent less expensive. This means that, among the cereals that consumers most frequently purchase and spend money on, higher-nutrient-density ultra-processed options are both nutritionally stronger and more affordable. This trend was not observed to be significant for any of the other four food categories assessed.
Looking for quick answers on food safety topics?
Try Ask FSM, our new smart AI search tool.
Ask FSM →
Overall, the analyses incorporating purchasing frequency or expenditure exposure across nutrient density tiers demonstrated that both nutritional differences and affordability patterns vary meaningfully across food categories, processing classification, and the spectrum of nutritional value.
“These findings underscore the importance of evaluating processing classification, nutrient quality, and price together when considering dietary guidance communication and healthful dietary behaviors aimed at improving overall diet quality,” the report concluded.
