An international team has published a three‑paper Lancet series (18–19 November 2025) arguing that diets high in ultra‑processed foods pose a significant global public health risk and merit immediate policy attention. The authors synthesised 104 long‑term studies; 92 reported higher risks for at least one chronic condition, with significant associations across 12 outcomes including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression and all‑cause mortality.
Ultra‑processed foods are defined in the NOVA framework as industrial formulations made mostly or entirely from food substances and additives with little or no whole food; NOVA classifies by the extent and purpose of processing rather than nutrient content. The approach is widely used in research but is not embedded in UK dietary law or guidance.
According to summaries of the series, ultra‑processed products contribute more than half of average dietary energy in countries such as the UK and US, with higher exposure among children and lower‑income groups. The authors link the trend to concentrated supply chains and intensive marketing.
The evidence base remains largely observational. Independent statisticians briefing via the Science Media Centre stress that such designs demonstrate associations but cannot establish cause and effect, a position consistent with the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN).
Even with those caveats, the series outlines a policy package: adding markers of ultra‑processing to front‑of‑pack labels alongside fat, sugar and salt; tighter advertising rules including brand‑level and digital marketing; removal of ultra‑processed products from schools and hospitals; limits on supermarket shelf space; and selected taxes with revenue used to improve access to fresh foods.
The UK already regulates products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS). Location‑based restrictions began on 1 October 2022. Volume price promotions for HFSS products are scheduled to end on 1 October 2025. A 9pm watershed for HFSS advertising on TV and a paid‑for online ban are now due to start on 5 January 2026 following a ministerial delay and a brand‑advertising exemption.
On fiscal tools, the Soft Drinks Industry Levy provides a precedent. Government monitoring reports a 46–47% reduction in the sales‑weighted sugar content of levy‑scope drinks since 2015, with most products now below the lower threshold. HM Treasury and HMRC reviewed the levy at Autumn Budget 2024 and consulted in 2025 on strengthening its design, including thresholds and exemptions.
Industry groups dispute the Lancet recommendations. The International Food and Beverage Alliance argues the proposals exceed the evidence base and could reduce access to affordable, shelf‑stable foods. UK manufacturers, represented by the Food and Drink Federation, highlight reformulation, citing Kantar data indicating member products now carry about 30% less sugar and 31% less salt than a decade ago.
SACN’s position remains central for UK policy. In 2023 it described the association between higher ultra‑processed intake and adverse outcomes as concerning, while concluding it is unclear whether risks arise from processing itself, nutrient profiles, or both. Until guidance changes, the Eatwell Guide remains the reference point: increase fruit, vegetables and fibre, and reduce free sugars, saturated fat and salt.
Any move to add processing markers to labels would need to integrate with the UK’s front‑of‑pack traffic‑light scheme and be supported by a classification workable in national datasets. Recent analysis of National Diet and Nutrition Survey items finds that processing status only partially overlaps with nutrient profiles, indicating further design and testing would be required.
For operators, the timetable is clear irrespective of any UPF‑specific measures. HFSS multibuy restrictions are scheduled for 1 October 2025, while the 9pm watershed and the paid‑for online advertising restrictions take effect on 5 January 2026. Businesses should continue preparations and monitor the outcome of the SDIL consultation and any further government statements on UPF policy.
The Lancet series will intensify debate but does not settle it. The weight of evidence links high ultra‑processed intake with poorer population health outcomes; equally, scientific reviewers call for more mechanism studies and clinical trials before regulating on processing per se. The near‑term policy test for the UK is whether existing HFSS and levy tools are sufficient or whether additional measures would deliver measurable, equitable health gains.