The Role of Food Labels in the Fight Against Ultra-Processed Products
Walk down any supermarket aisle, and you’ll likely be surrounded by boxes, bottles, and packets designed for convenience, but packed with ingredients your grandparents wouldn’t recognise. These are ultra-processed products (UPPs), a growing staple in diets around the world. While they may be cheap, tasty, and shelf-stable, they’ve also been linked to rising rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and even some cancers.
This article explores the role of food labels in identifying, discouraging, and ultimately reducing consumption of ultra-processed products. We’ll look at how labels are used today, where they fall short, and how governments and manufacturers are experimenting with new ways to inform and protect consumers.
Understanding Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs)
Not all processed foods are created equal. While washing, freezing, or pasteurising can be considered basic forms of processing, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) go far beyond. According to the NOVA food classification system—one of the most widely accepted frameworks in nutrition science—UPFs are industrial formulations made mostly from substances extracted from foods, derived from food constituents, or synthesised in laboratories.
These products typically contain little to no whole food. Instead, they feature a cocktail of additives like artificial flavours, colourings, sweeteners, preservatives, emulsifiers, and texturisers. The goal is clear: enhance shelf life, make the product hyper-palatable, and increase profit margins. Think sugary breakfast cereals, instant noodles, soda, packaged cookies, processed meats, and many “health” bars or ready-to-drink shakes.
What makes UPFs especially problematic is their link to a range of chronic diseases. Studies show a strong association between high UPF consumption and increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, and even some forms of cancer. In countries like the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., UPFs make up more than 50% of daily calorie intake, making this a public health emergency.
Despite their risks, UPFs often come dressed in the language of health—”high in protein,” “plant-based,” “low-fat”—which can confuse consumers and mask their nutritional reality. The role of labels is to inform and clarify what these products really are.
What Food Labels Currently Tell Us
Food labels are designed to help consumers make informed choices, but their effectiveness depends on what information is shared and how it’s presented. In most countries, packaged food must include a Nutrition Facts Panel that lists calories, macronutrients (fats, carbs, protein), and often micronutrients like vitamins or minerals. Ingredients are typically listed in descending order by weight, giving insight into what the product is mostly made of.
These labels also include percent daily values (%DV) to help consumers understand how a food contributes to their daily nutrient intake. However, understanding these numbers requires a level of nutritional literacy that many consumers lack. Serving sizes can also be misleading, often downplayed to make calorie or sugar content appear lower.
Beyond the facts panel, marketing-driven claims crowd the packaging: “low-sugar,” “gluten-free,” “high in fiber,” or “natural.” While technically accurate under regulatory definitions, these claims can easily mislead. For example, a snack labeled “low-fat” may still be high in sugar and calories. Similarly, “plant-based” doesn’t always mean whole or healthy. Many ultra-processed snacks now use this label to ride the wave of health-conscious consumers.
Then there’s the ingredient list, which can be just as confusing. Additives often appear under unfamiliar names (like “maltodextrin” or “monoglycerides”), masking the highly industrialised nature of the product. The absence of a formal “ultra-processed” category on the label makes it difficult for consumers to spot these products unless they know what to look for.
Front-of-Pack (FOP) Labelling: A Public Health Tool
As traditional nutrition labels prove too dense or confusing for quick decisions, many countries have turned to front-of-pack (FOP) labelling, a system designed to communicate key nutritional information at a glance. These labels appear on the front of food packaging, often using colours, symbols, or warnings to guide consumers toward healthier choices and away from products high in harmful nutrients.
There are several types of FOP systems in use around the world:
• Traffic light labels (used in the UK and parts of Europe) colour-code fat, sugar, salt, and calorie content—green for low, amber for moderate, and red for high.
• Nutri-Score (adopted in France and now rolling out across the EU) uses a single letter and colour rating from A (healthiest) to E (least healthy), based on an algorithm that weighs both positive and negative nutrients.
• Warning labels, such as those used in Chile, Mexico, and Israel, take a more aggressive approach. Products high in sugar, sodium, saturated fat, or calories carry bold, black stop-sign symbols that read “High in Sugar” or “Excess Calories.”
These systems are showing measurable success. In Chile, after implementing warning labels, researchers saw a significant drop in purchases of sugary beverages and ultra-processed snacks, alongside product reformulation by major brands. Similar trends have emerged in Mexico, where FOP warnings helped consumers better identify unhealthy products, regardless of their education or income level.
What makes FOP labelling so powerful is its simplicity. It removes the burden of nutritional math and helps consumers quickly distinguish between whole foods, minimally processed items, and those that are ultra-processed and potentially harmful. When paired with strong public education campaigns, these labels can shift both behaviour and industry standards.
Challenges in Labelling Ultra-Processed Products
While front-of-pack labels and ingredient lists can help steer consumers away from unhealthy products, labelling ultra-processed foods remains a major challenge. One of the biggest obstacles is the lack of a standardised definition in regulatory frameworks. Although nutrition scientists widely use the NOVA classification to define UPFs, most food agencies—including the FDA and EFSA—don’t formally recognise “ultra-processed” as a labelling category.
This regulatory grey area leaves room for misleading claims. A cereal bar made with corn syrup, soy protein isolate, and emulsifiers might still feature bold text saying “Made with Whole Grains” or “Source of Fiber.” These health halos can mask the reality of how industrial the product really is. Even when FOP systems are in place, they often don’t flag ultra-processing unless it’s accompanied by excess sugar, salt, or fat.
Food industry lobbying also plays a significant role. Large corporations have pushed back hard against labelling initiatives that could hurt sales, arguing that such systems oversimplify complex nutrition or unfairly penalise products. In some countries, proposed regulations for UPF labelling have stalled due to industry influence and legal challenges.
Another complication lies in consumer perception. Many people don’t understand the difference between “processed” and “ultra-processed.” Frozen vegetables are technically processed, but nutritionally sound. On the other hand, a veggie chip made from powdered starch and artificial flavours might seem healthy but is a textbook example of a UPF.
Finally, labelling inconsistencies across borders create confusion, especially for multinational brands. A product deemed “high in sugar” in one country might carry no warning elsewhere. Without global coordination, even the best labelling strategies struggle to deliver their full impact.
How Labels Can Drive Reformulation
One of the roles of food labels is to pressure manufacturers to change what they’re putting into products. When labelling systems publicly flag high levels of sugar, salt, or fat, companies often respond by altering their recipes to avoid the negative spotlight.
Take Chile, for example. After the country introduced bold black warning labels for excess sugar, sodium, and saturated fat, many food companies reformulated their products to fall below the regulatory thresholds. Soda brands reduced sugar content, snack manufacturers cut back on salt, and even breakfast cereals saw major changes. This pattern has also been observed in Canada, Peru, and Israel, where front-of-pack labelling laws prompted measurable decreases in harmful ingredients across many product categories.
Reformulation efforts often include:
• Reducing added sugars and replacing them with alternative sweeteners (sometimes problematic in their own right).
• Lowering sodium content to avoid “high in salt” warnings.
• Swapping saturated fats for unsaturated oils to improve nutritional scores.
Beyond meeting legal thresholds, some companies use labelling as a competitive advantage. When front-of-pack systems like Nutri-Score assign favourable ratings to healthier products, brands actively tweak recipes to achieve a better score, knowing it can influence consumer preference.
There’s also increasing pressure from retailers and third-party certifications. Grocery chains are beginning to evaluate suppliers based on health metrics, while health-focused labels (like “Heart Check” or “Clean Label”) encourage brands to simplify ingredients and cut ultra-processed components.
Consumer Empowerment Through Label Literacy
Even the best food labelling system is useless if people don’t understand it. That’s why label literacy—the ability to read, interpret, and act on label information—is a critical part of reducing ultra-processed food consumption. When consumers can spot red flags on a package or recognise deceptive claims, they’re better equipped to make healthier choices.
Public health campaigns play a central role in boosting this awareness. In countries like Mexico and Chile, governments paired the rollout of warning labels with nationwide educational efforts explaining what the symbols mean and why they matter. The results were promising: consumers across all income and education levels began making more informed food purchases.
Digital tools are helping bridge the gap as well. Apps like Yuka, Open Food Facts, and MyFitnessPal allow users to scan barcodes and instantly view a product’s nutrition rating or ultra-processed score. Some even flag controversial ingredients and suggest healthier alternatives. These tools can be particularly useful for time-strapped shoppers or those overwhelmed by technical label language.
However, not all consumers have equal access to information. People with limited nutrition knowledge, low literacy, or without smartphones may still struggle to decode labels or understand what “maltodextrin” or “modified starch” implies. In some regions, especially low- and middle-income countries, label literacy is limited by poor infrastructure, minimal health education, or inconsistent labelling standards.
That’s why education must go hand in hand with labelling reform. Schools, community health workers, and public campaigns all have a role to play in teaching people how to read beyond the marketing and recognise what they’re really putting in their bodies.
The Future of Labelling: Towards Ultra-Processing Warnings?
As awareness grows around the dangers of ultra-processed foods, some experts are calling for a new generation of food labels—ones that go beyond sugar, salt, and fat to address the deeper issue of how a product is made.
One emerging idea is to create explicit warnings for ultra-processed products, similar to those used for tobacco or alcohol. These would clearly indicate when a food item is industrially formulated, regardless of its macronutrient breakdown. Early proposals include placing “Ultra-Processed” labels directly on the front of the package or introducing icons that denote levels of processing on a scale, much like Nutri-Score does for nutrients.
There’s also momentum toward using smart labelling technologies. QR codes, NFC chips, or app integrations could let consumers scan a product and instantly receive detailed breakdowns of its ingredients, processing level, environmental impact, and health risks. Some health apps are already inching in this direction, combining nutrient scoring with processing alerts.
Meanwhile, sustainability and health labelling are starting to converge. Labels may soon show not only what’s in a product and how it’s made—but also how it affects the planet. For example, France is piloting a combined Eco-Score and Nutri-Score system to reflect both environmental and nutritional quality.
Conclusion
Besides listing ingredients, food labels are a powerful tool in the global effort to reduce ultra-processed food consumption. As diets become increasingly dominated by industrially formulated products, clear and accessible labelling becomes essential for protecting public health.
While current systems like nutrition facts and front-of-pack warnings have made meaningful strides, they don’t yet go far enough. Most labels still fail to capture the full picture of ultra-processing, allowing highly engineered products to masquerade as healthy options. The lack of standardised regulations and industry pushback only adds to the problem.
Still, there’s reason for optimism. As governments roll out smarter labelling systems and consumers become more educated, brands are starting to feel the pressure. Reformulation is already happening. Digital tools are making label literacy more accessible. And global momentum is building around the idea that transparency shouldn’t end at sugar and salt—it should include how a food is made.
