Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) get a bad rap—and for good reason. They’re linked to obesity, food addiction, and even dementia. But a new study challenges the idea that all UPFs are equally harmful. In fact, it suggests that how we think about food may be just as important as what it’s made of.
We love food—but why do we overeat?
UPFs like crisps, ready meals, and fizzy drinks are often blamed for modern health problems. They’re described as addictive, overly palatable, and engineered to keep us eating. But is it the food itself—or our perception of it—that drives overeating?
To find out, researchers studied over 3,000 UK adults and their reactions to more than 400 common foods. Their goal? To separate what people like from what makes them keep eating after they’re full.
Chocolate, biscuits and ice cream top both lists of liked foods and hedonic overeating. (Alamy/PA)
Participants rated food photos (without brand labels) for taste and “bingeability.” Then researchers cross-referenced those ratings with:
Nutritional info like fat, sugar, and fiber
The food’s UPF status, using the Nova system
People’s perceptions—was it sweet, fatty, processed, or healthy?
The key insight: beliefs matter.
Yes, high-fat, high-calorie foods were more likely to be overconsumed. But so were foods perceived as sweet, rich, or heavily processed—even if they weren’t. On the flip side, foods seen as bitter or fiber-rich were far less likely to trigger hedonic overeating.
In one test, researchers predicted 78% of overeating behavior using just nutrient data and food perceptions. The Nova UPF label? It explained less than 4%.
The UPF label isn’t enough
That’s not to say ultra-processed foods are harmless. Many are calorie-dense and nutrient-poor. But the UPF label lumps everything together—from sugary soft drinks to protein bars and vegan meat alternatives.
Classifying a food as ‘ultra-processed’ added very little to predictive models. (Getty/iStock)
Some of these foods can still be part of a healthy diet—especially for older adults, people with dietary restrictions, or anyone needing convenient nutrition. Demonizing them all doesn’t help. In fact, it could backfire by discouraging people from eating foods that are actually beneficial.
Instead of labeling foods as good or bad based on processing, the researchers recommend a smarter approach:
Food literacy: Teach people what makes food satisfying, how to manage cravings, and how to recognize when they’re eating for comfort, not hunger.
Reformulation: Develop products that are enjoyable and filling—rather than ultra-bland diet versions or hyper-palatable snacks.
Understand motivation: People eat for emotional, social, and practical reasons. Helping them replace low-quality habits with better ones starts with understanding those needs.
It’s not about processing—it’s about perception
Yes, some UPFs deserve concern. They’re highly marketed, sold in big portions, and easy to overconsume. But they’re not the root of all dietary evil.
What this study reveals is that eating behavior is complex—driven by both what food contains and what we believe about it. And that belief can shape behavior even more than a nutrition label.
So rather than relying on UPF status to shape policy, maybe it’s time to focus on the psychology of food. Because if we want people to eat better, we need to understand why they eat in the first place.
