The UPF Debate: A Turning Point for the Food Industry

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become a flashpoint in the food and nutrition landscape. Once a technical classification understood mainly by food scientists and public health researchers, the term has now entered everyday language—and with it, a wave of concern over what’s really in our food. For the plant-based and alternative protein sectors, this rising scrutiny represents a pivotal moment. Brands long celebrated for sustainability are now being challenged on another front: ingredient transparency and processing levels.

From meat alternatives to dairy-free beverages, many plant-based products rely on industrial ingredients such as methylcellulose, textured vegetable proteins, and fermentation-derived components to replicate the taste, texture, and shelf life of animal-based products. But as the UPF conversation intensifies, manufacturers are under increasing pressure to reformulate while retaining product performance—and consumer trust.

Defining Ultra-Processed: Regulatory Momentum Builds

The core challenge for businesses lies in the absence of a unified, regulatory definition of “ultra-processed.” The term most commonly refers to products categorized as “Group 4” in the NOVA classification system—those that contain industrial ingredients not typically used in home kitchens and are manufactured through multiple processing steps.

In the United States, this gap may soon narrow. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced plans to issue a federal definition of UPFs in 2025. The move, prompted by mounting health research and public demand, would mark a first-of-its-kind effort to codify ultra-processing in food labeling and consumer guidance. While no regulations are expected to outright ban these foods, the FDA envisions new “non-ultra-processed” labeling options and greater clarity for consumers choosing between processed options.

States are also taking independent action. California’s Assembly Bill 1264, for example, aims to phase out UPFs from public school cafeterias entirely by 2032. Meanwhile, Texas and Arizona are exploring mandatory warning labels for foods containing specific additives, such as emulsifiers and artificial dyes—ingredients frequently found in plant-based meat analogues.

Globally, momentum is growing. Canada’s updated Food Guide explicitly encourages consumers to avoid highly processed foods, while new front-of-pack labeling rules flag products high in sodium, sugar, or saturated fats. In Brazil, national school meal policies have already restricted the share of ultra-processed foods served to students, with further limits expected by 2026. The European Union is moving more cautiously but is facing increased calls from health coalitions to adopt similar labeling and marketing restrictions. France’s ANSES recently released a scientific opinion affirming the health risks associated with high-UPF diets, though it stopped short of recommending regulatory limits.

Clean Labels and Complex Trade-Offs

The regulatory developments are driving plant-based brands to re-examine how their products are made—and marketed. For many, the path to a “clean label” is not straightforward. Reformulating to exclude ingredients like methylcellulose or flavor enhancers often means sacrificing texture, shelf life, or even nutrient density. These challenges are particularly acute in alt-protein products, which rely on technical innovation to mimic meat’s sensory experience.

Several high-profile brands have already responded. Beyond Meat launched its “Beyond Burger 4.0” with avocado oil to reduce saturated fat and fewer synthetic ingredients. The reformulated burger aims to improve both health profile and consumer perception, though it introduces new manufacturing complexities. Impossible Foods, another industry leader, introduced a lower-fat “Beef Lite” variant that meets American Diabetes Association guidelines, emphasizing nutritional value while maintaining flavor. Both brands are signaling a shift from performance-first design toward ingredient transparency and health credibility.

Meanwhile, startups are entering the market with radically simplified formulations. Ireland-based Thanks Plants, for instance, offers legume-based sausages made entirely from whole food ingredients and herbs. European newcomer Juicy Marbles uses a short ingredient list and novel structuring technology to replicate whole-cut meats without common binders or additives. These brands often trade mass appeal or shelf stability for consumer trust and clean-label cachet—an equation that may define the next chapter in alternative proteins.

R&D and Marketing in a Shifting Landscape

For R&D teams, the UPF debate introduces new constraints and opportunities. Replacing functional additives often means longer development cycles and increased costs. Natural alternatives—like fruit fiber-based emulsifiers or mycelium-derived textures—are promising but not always scalable. Researchers must now not only optimize for sensory attributes and cost-efficiency but also meet emerging expectations for simplicity and recognizability.

Marketing teams face their own balancing act. The health halo that once surrounded plant-based foods is showing signs of erosion. Consumer surveys indicate that nearly half of shoppers now express concern over the amount of processing in meat and dairy alternatives. Retailers are also becoming more selective, with some requesting “cleaner” ingredient decks to qualify for placement in health-focused store sections. Communicating product benefits without overpromising or invoking backlash has become a delicate endeavor.

Compliance departments are likewise preparing for more rigorous labeling environments. As definitions of UPFs solidify and labeling frameworks evolve, brands will need to audit product portfolios, monitor ingredient regulations across jurisdictions, and potentially revise marketing language. Proactive adaptation—not just regulatory compliance—may become a competitive differentiator.

Insights from Industry Leaders

Against this backdrop, Bridge2Food North America 2025 will feature a panel discussion titled “What’s the Future of the UPF Debate?” bringing together leaders from across the plant-based ecosystem to address these challenges and opportunities.

Annie Ryu, CEO and Founder of jack & annie’s, will share her experience creating whole food-based meat alternatives that prioritize transparency and simplicity. Adria Campbell, Chief Revenue Officer at MALK Organics, offers a perspective from the beverage category, where clean labels are core to brand identity and consumer loyalty. Adam Melonas, Founder and CEO of Chew, brings a culinary innovation lens, advocating for products that are both functional and intuitively clean. And Margie Best, Global Business Development Manager at Ashland, provides technical expertise on formulation challenges and the next generation of functional ingredients.

Panelists will explore how the alt-protein industry is adjusting formulations, communicating values, and balancing health, sustainability, and consumer expectations. The discussion promises to unpack how companies are navigating real-world pressures—be they from regulators, retailers, or end consumers—to evolve the way they develop and position food products.

Looking Ahead

The UPF debate is not just a passing trend; it is reshaping the food industry’s definition of innovation. For plant-based and sustainable food companies, staying ahead means investing in science that supports clean-label functionality, engaging in transparent consumer education, and preparing for a world where both processing and purpose will be closely examined.

To explore these themes in depth, join us at Bridge2Food North America 2025, co-hosted by the MBOLD Coalition, October 21–23 in Minneapolis, MN.

{{ article.HEADLINE }} {% if article.external_mode %}{% endif %}

{{ article.HEADLINE }} {% if article.external_mode %}{% endif %}

{{ article.HEADLINE }} {% if article.external_mode %}{% endif %}