The Non-GMO Project, the non-profit organisation behind the widespread non-GMO label in the US which highlights to consumers foods that have not genetically engineered ingredients, is bringing out a new labelling scheme: Non-UPF Verified.
The details of the scheme have not yet been published, but further details and pilot brands for the labelling scheme will be announced during Natural Products Expo West.
The scheme is expected to be largely based on the controversial NOVA UPF classification system but may be slightly more forgiving when it comes to additives, while making a distinction between traditional processing (such as home cooking) and industrial processing. The latter is the bigger problem according to the Non-GMO Project, which describes industrial processes as “taking familiar ingredients and transforming them so fundamentally that our bodies no longer recognize them as food”.
According to the organisation many health conditions can be linked back to UPFs, ranging from obesity to mental health and beyond. It makes many strong statements on its website nonultraprocessed.org, including one that says “diet is now the leading cause of death, driven by UPF-fuelled epidemics of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer.” The new label aims to “address an urgent public health crisis: the pervasive dominance of ultra-processed foods in our global food supply.”
Can a labelling scheme realistically achieve this, when consumers don’t understand what the label actually refers to? Time and time again, research shows that consumers are confused when it comes to UPFs. For example, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) found in 2024 that 41% of the 10,000 consumers asked would classify a raw egg as a UPF, which is obviously incorrect.
This is hardly surprising, considering that there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a UPF – neither industry, academia nor government has been able to agree on one. This is the main reason why the US’ Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee chose to exclude any recommendations relating to UPFs in its proposal for the 2025-2030 edition of the dietary guidelines.
The Non-GMO Project believes that confusion around the term is precisely the problem that the new labelling scheme will help solve. It acknowledges that consumer education played a significant role in consumer adoption of the non-GMO label and hopes to be able to replicate this for UPFs. It argues that “while some UPFs are obvious - like soft drinks or instant noodles - others masquerade as healthy choices. If the ingredient list is long and includes items you wouldn't find in a home kitchen, it's likely ultra-processed”. As examples of such “secretly ultra-processed” foods, it lists protein bars, plant-based meat alternatives, breakfast cereals and low-fat products.
However, there is also the issue that FOP labelling schemes aimed at improving health have often been found to not work. One reason is that the consumers who are most at risk are less likely to read labels. Market research firm The Natural Marketing Institute found that, when dividing consumers into five groups depending on their BMI, only 23-31% of consumers in the two highest BMI groups said that labels, ingredient lists and health claims influence their food purchases. In the group with the lowest BMI, that number was 71%.
Learn more about the label here: https://www.nonultraprocessed.org/faqs
