In A Nutshell
- Food perceptions matter: What people believe about a food—whether it’s sweet, fatty, or processed—can significantly influence their eating habits, sometimes even more than its actual nutritional value.
- Ultra-processed food (UPF) labels add little: When considering perceptions and nutrients, the UPF classification only accounted for 2–4% of overeating behavior.
- Not all UPFs are harmful: Some, like fortified cereals, can be beneficial in context, despite being calorie-dense.
- Policy implications: General warnings on UPFs could mislead consumers, suggesting we should promote food literacy and understanding rather than just warning labels.
Ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, have garnered a bad reputation in discussions about nutrition. From links to obesity to concerns about “food addiction,” these products—think chips, sugary drinks, and ready-made meals—are often blamed for a range of health issues. Some experts go as far as to say they are designed to exploit our brain’s reward system, making us eat more than we actually need.
Meanwhile, some policymakers have pushed for sweeping changes, like warning labels and even bans near schools. But it raises the question: how much of this is backed by solid research?
This led my colleagues and me to ponder: what makes a food appealing? What gets people to overeat, not just enjoy a dish but keep going after they’re full? We looked at feedback from over 3,000 individuals in the UK regarding more than 400 common foods. Our findings complicate the straightforward narrative around UPFs and offer a more sophisticated perspective.
It’s often easy to confuse liking a food with hedonic overeating—enjoying food for pleasure rather than out of hunger. Liking is primarily about taste, whereas hedonic overeating ties back to emotions tied to food. For instance, while many enjoy oatmeal, they rarely binge on it. However, chocolate and cookies tend to be different stories.
In our three extensive online studies, we had participants evaluate unbranded food portions to see how much they liked them and how likely they were to overeat. The foods chosen were typical items from a UK grocery list, including jacket potatoes, apples, and cottage pie.
After gathering the data, we compared the participants’ responses to three aspects: the nutritional content of the foods (fat, sugar, fiber, energy density), their classification as ultra-processed via the Nova system—an established food classification—and how people perceived them in terms of sweetness, fat content, and healthiness.
Perception Power
Some findings aligned with expectations: people tend to favor foods they consume frequently, and higher calorie foods often lead to overeating.
However, the bigger takeaway was the impact of beliefs and perceptions around food. While nutritional content did influence ratings—high-fat, high-carb options were seen as more enjoyable—how folks perceived the food played a vital role as well. Foods believed to be sweet or fatty prompted more overeating, in contrast to those perceived as bitter or high in fiber.
In one of our surveys, we could predict a whopping 78% of the variations in overeating tendencies by considering nutrient data alongside beliefs and sensory perceptions about the food.
In essence, how people think about food can shape their eating habits just as much as what those foods actually contain.
This brings us back to ultra-processed foods. Despite the scrutiny, simply labeling a food as “ultra-processed” added little predictive power. When we took into account nutritional value and perceptions, the Nova classification only explained under 2% of liking and roughly 4% of overeating tendencies.
This doesn’t mean all UPFs are totally harmless. Many are high in calories and low in fiber, making them easy to over-consume. Yet the UPF label is rather blunt—it groups together things like sugary soft drinks and fortified cereals without distinguishing their health implications.
Some products might not be the healthiest options, but others, especially for those with lower appetites or specific dietary needs, can be quite beneficial.
The notion that all UPFs are bad oversimplifies a more complex issue. People don’t just eat based on labels; they also consider how food tastes, how it fits into their health goals, and how it resonates emotionally.
Thus, relying solely on UPF labels in policymaking might backfire; warning labels could inadvertently push people away from beneficial options like whole grain cereals, leading to confusion over what truly is unhealthy.
Our recommendation is a more informed and nuanced approach:
• Promote food literacy: Teach individuals what makes food satisfying and how to recognize their own overeating cues.
• Focus on intentional reformulation: Create foods that are both enjoyable and fulfilling, rather than relying on bland diet options.
• Understand that motivations for eating can extend beyond hunger: Many people eat for comfort or pleasure. Encouraging healthier habits while maximizing enjoyment could mitigate reliance on low-quality foods.
It’s Not Just About Processing
Some UPFs are indeed concerning due to their high calorie content and aggressive marketing, often sold in oversized portions. However, calling out entire categories of food solely on the processing dimension overlooks the complexities of eating behaviors.
What drives us to consume and sometimes overconsume is intricate but certainly manageable. We have the data and models to explore these motivations and help individuals foster healthier diets that are also satisfying.
Ultimately, the characteristics of food—along with how we perceive them—carry more weight than whether they come in a package. To cultivate better eating habits, we should focus on the psychological aspects of our choices rather than demonizing entire food groups.
