UPFs vs organic - surely a golden opportunity?
by Simon Wright, Founder, OF Plus Ltd, United Kingdom
Post World War Two farmers were told” grow as much as you can”. Contemporary developments in artificial inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides made this possible. It wasn’t until Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962 that the negative impact of intensive agriculture on environment and health was considered. The organic movement responded by developing an agricultural system that replaced artificial inputs with crop rotation and prioritised soil health. Thirty years ago, social justice entered the equation with the Fairtrade movement ensuring that farmers in the global South received a decent income.
Manufactured foods
Both these movements were dwarfed by the move to manufactured foods which offered consumers increased convenience at highly competitive prices. Such foods relied heavily on food additives and food processing. With the increased consumption of ready-to-eat meals came a reduction in cooking skills. The food manufacturing and retailing industry benefitted from the added value that could be achieved by selling processed foods compared to selling fresh produce.
Society is now having to pay for our increasing reliance on these foods. Our health service is being bankrupted by increasing levels of obesity and diabetes. Intensive agriculture has reduced soil fertility: excess chemicals applied to the land have to be removed by water companies at great cost. Climate change is making it ever more difficult for farmers in both the North and South to grow their crops as temperatures increase and pests become more prevalent. A reduction in food security has resulted.
I started thinking about food additives in 1986 when as a young food technologist I read the book E Is For Additives by Maurice Hansson. My long-term concerns over the prevalence of food additives and processed foods in our diet has recently been reflected by the debate over Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs). Over the last two years the United Kingdon has been the epicentre over public concern about the prevalence of UPFs in our diet. So, pushing the anti-UPF message is surely a fantastic opportunity for the organic sector? Well, it is not quite as simple as that.
The NOVA system
Currently we classify foods under the Nova system, first devised by the University of Sao Paolo in 2009. This divides foods into four categories and has popularised the term UPF:
1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods (apples)
2. Processed culinary ingredients (olive oil)
3. Processed foods (bread)
4. Ultra Processed Foods (Snickers bar)
The Nova system has received widespread criticism for the diverse range of products that are lumped together in Category 4, which includes everything from a slice of organic rye bread to a chicken nugget. The Nova system has also been criticised for taking no account of the degree of processing involved or the quality of ingredients employed. It has been estimated that 57% of the food and drink eaten in the UK is classified as Class Four (UPF), rising to 75% in teenagers. Consumer research indicates that very few consumers have an understanding of what makes an UPF, although that does not stop around half of all consumers saying they want to avoid them! Concerns raised by consumers include the presence of ‘weird’ sounding ingredients and a high degree of processing.
UPFs and HFSS
At the heart of the UPF debate is the question as to whether high consumption of UPFs leads to poor health outcomes. Many UPFs are HFSS (High in Fat, Sugar and Salt), some are not. A link between the consumption of HFSS foods and poor health outcomes is easy to demonstrate: establishing a link between UPF consumption and poor health outcomes is less straightforward. To add a further level of complexity, many consumers appear to regard UPFs and HFSS foods as one and the same thing.
Clearly eliminating UPFs from the diet is going to be hard, as they constitute over half of the foods eaten by UK consumers. Many organic foods would be classified as UPFs. However, the legislation around organic foods prevents the inclusion of artificial ingredients, ensuring that nothing unfamiliar is ever found in an organic food. If the NOVA system evolves to include the degree of processing applied then organic foods might also offer a ‘lightly processed’ offer to meet consumer expectations.
In recent months the UPF debate has become more nuanced. Recent research commissioned by Food Navigator has looked at which product sectors are doing well and which are doing badly in the UPF debate. Growing scepticism around highly-engineered meat and dairy alternatives has driven consumers back towards conventional dairy and meat products, helping to drive sales of their organic counterparts. The other winner here has been traditional meat-free products such as tofu and tempeh where organic versions are doing well and taking advantage of the consumer demand for clean-label, minimally processed products. Ready meals and ready-to-eat meals are associated with UPFs by over half of consumers and sales of these products have declined. Consumers globally are increasingly drawn to foods they perceive as more natural. Nearly one in two consumers globally have purchased more fresh and unprocessed foods over the past year. This creates a clear sales opportunity for organics.
A role for certification?
Given the confusion amongst consumers as to what a UPF actually is, would some form of certification be welcome? The organic sector can certainly argue that such certification has worked well to reassure consumers all over the world. Predictably the state of California has been the first territory to propose a non-UPF on pack logo. There are already a range of voluntary non-UPF schemes available. As TOS reported in issue 205 in 2025 the founders of the Non-GMO Project debuted a Non-UPF verified pilot programme. More recently the consumer-focussed app Wisecode launched the Non-UPF Shield verification programme for brands that meet its non-UPF threshold.
In March 2026 California Assembly member Jesse Gabriel introduced Assembly Bill 2244 which, if passed, would create a California Certified non-UPF seal that food manufacturers could voluntarily place on products that met the legislation’s requirements. This would define a UPF as any food or beverage that contains one or more ingredients with a ‘specific technical effect’, including stabilisers, thickeners, aerating agents, colours, emulsifiers, flavouring agents, flavour enhancers or non-nutritive sweeteners. It also defines UPFs as containing 10% or more total energy from saturated fat, a sodium (milligrams) to calorie ratio equal or greater than one, and 10% or more total energy from added sugars. Although the seal would be voluntary for manufacturers, supermarkets would be required to display products with the seal in “prominent high traffic areas in the store, so that busy shoppers can find healthier options more quickly.”
A quick survey of popular organic foods on sale in the average natural food store would reveal that many would be classified as UPFs under the Californian proposals. These would include organic butter, organic marmalade, organic lemonade, organic yoghurt, organic dark chocolate, organic tomato ketchup, organic cornflakes and organic miso. What would consumers make of a product carrying logos saying both organic and UPF? The citizens of California may be about to find out.
Denmark offers a different approach to the UPF challenge. Innovative organic companies are using advanced fermentation and minimal processing to develop products that are lightly processed with positive nutritional profiles and short, clean ingredient lists. Examples include Uhhmami flavour boosters, Tempty mushroom and quinoa burgers and Dava’s fermented legumes. Increasingly Danish companies are working to upcycle food by using byproducts that would otherwise be discarded. In this way the unnatural-sounding ingredients and overprocessing characteristic of UPFs are avoided. Danish consumers have responded with enthusiasm. Aided by local and national government support, 12% of all food consumed in Denmark is organically certified. In the UK the equivalent figure is less than 2%.
An opportunity for the organic sector?
Public concerns about UPFs offer an opportunity to the organic sector, allowing us to talk about clean labels with short, recognisable ingredient lists. But it would be naïve to think that any consumer who wants to avoid UPFs will automatically beat a path to the organic door. UPFs are popular because they offer convenience and taste at a competitive price. Their organic equivalents might match them for taste and possibly convenience but will undoubtedly cost more. At a time of rising food inflation, the challenge will be to demonstrate, as ever, that organic food offers better value and values than non-organic food. Possibly the most useful outcome of the debate over UPFs is increased awareness about what is in our food, how it got there and what it will do to us. Starting that conversation can lead consumers to realise that organic food is the answer to many of their questions. As The Soil Association point out in their annual Organic Market Report (2026) “Shoppers see organic as a positive way to address their growing concerns over health. Research confirms that 57% of shoppers agree organic foods benefit health. Plus, 53% claim that ‘healthy nutrition’ has become more important to them in the last five years. With health top of mind for many, it is unsurprising that focus is growing on how food is produced. All these sub-trends contribute to the bigger story: shoppers are looking harder at exactly what’s in the food they feed their families every day.” And that can only help organic sales.
Simon can be reached at www.ofplus.com and simon@ofplus.com