Authors of a study around food perception say that labelling ultra-processed food could “backfire” and that more ‘food literacy’ is needed to help people understand their cravings.
In an article in The Conversation, two professors who looked in depth at what actually makes people like a food say their findings demonstrate that there needs to be a more informed, personalised approach when it comes to policies around ultra processed food.
Graham Finlayson, Professor of Psychobiology at the University of Leeds and James Stubbs, Professor in Appetite & Energy Balance at University of Leeds, say their study found that how we think about food affects how we eat it, just as much as the ingredients.
Experts have linked ultra processed food (UPFs) to a range of health issues, from dementia to obesity, with policymakers proposing interventions including warning labels, marketing restrictions, taxes, and even outright bans near schools.
- Cognitve decline associated with some ultra-processed foods
- Eating lots of ultra-processed food linked to higher levels of inflammation marker
- Ultra processed foods linked to more fat gain even with the same calories
Professors Finlayson and Stubbs set out to explore the evidence in more detail by looking at what drives people to overeat, even when they are no longer hungry.
They studied more than 3,000 UK adults and their responses to over 400 everyday foods and said: “What we found challenges the simplistic UPF narrative and offers a more nuanced way forward.”
Participants took part in three online studies where they rated photos of unbranded food portions for how much they liked them and how likely they were to overeat them. Among the 400 common items were jacket potatoes, apples, noodles, cottage pie and custard creams.
The team then compared the findings with three things:
- The foods’ nutritional content
- Their classification as ultra-processed (the extent and purpose of their processing)
- How people perceived them – sweet, fatty, processed, healthy etc.
A “surprising insight” was that if someone perceived a food as sweet, fatty or highly processed, it increased the likelihood of their overeating it, regardless of its actual nutritional content. Conversely, foods believed to be bitter or high in fibre had the opposite effect.
While the authors acknowledge that not all UPFs are harmless, they say their findings demonstrate the UPF label is a blunt instrument as it lumps together many different foods.
Some of these products, they say, can be helpful, particularly for older adults with low appetites, or those on restricted diets.
The authors said: “The message that all UPFs are bad oversimplifies the issue. People don’t eat based on food labels alone. They eat based on how a food tastes, how it makes them feel and how it fits with their health, social or emotional goals.
“Relying on UPF labels to shape policy could backfire. Warning labels might steer people away from foods that are actually beneficial, like wholegrain cereals, or create confusion about what’s genuinely unhealthy.”
Instead, the team say a more informed, personalised approach if required:
- Boost food literacy: help people understand what makes food satisfying, what drives cravings, and how to recognise their personal cues for overeating
- Design food products that are enjoyable and filling, rather than relying on bland ‘diet’ options or ultra-palatable snacks
- Address eating motivations: people eat for many reasons beyond hunger. Supporting alternative habits while maximising enjoyment could reduce dependence on low-quality foods.
The authors said: “If we want to encourage better eating habits, it’s time to stop demonising food groups and start focusing on the psychology behind our choices.”
