Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Ultra-processed foods (UPF) have become public enemy number one in nutrition debates. From dementia To obesity And an epidemic of “food addiction”, these factory-made products including crisps, ready meals, fizzy drinks and packaged snacks, are blamed for a wide range of modern illnesses. Health issues. Some experts argue that they are “specially formulated and aggressively marketed to maximize consumption and corporate profits”, hijacking our brain’s reward systems so that we eat more than we need.
Policymakers have proposed bold interventions: warning labels, marketing restrictions, taxes, and even outright bans from schools. But how based on solid evidence is this urgency?
My colleagues and I wanted to step back and ask: What is it really that makes people love food? And what motivates them to overeat – not just to enjoy it, but to keep eating even after hunger is gone? We studied over 3,000 UK Adults and their reactions to over 400 everyday foods. What we found challenges the simplistic UPF narrative and offers a more nuanced way forward.
Two ideas often get blurred in nutrition discussions: liking and pleasurable food. Eat (Eating for pleasure rather than hunger). Liking is about taste. Hedonic overeating means continuing to eat because food feels good. They are related, but not identical. Many people like porridge but they rarely eat it. On the other hand, chocolate, biscuits and ice cream top both the lists.
We conducted three large online studies where participants rated photographs of non-branded food portions based on how much they liked them and how likely they were to eat more. The foods were recognizable items from a typical UK shopping basket: jacket potatoes, apples, noodles, cottage pie, custard cream – more than 400 in total.
We then compared these responses to three things: the nutritional content of the foods (fat, sugar, fiber, energy density), their classification as ultra-processed by the widely used NOVA system – a food classification method that groups foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing – and how people perceived them (sweet, fatty, processed, healthy and so on).
power of perception
Some findings were expected: People liked the foods they ate most often, and were more likely to eat more of the calorie-dense foods.
But more surprising insights came from the role of beliefs and perceptions. Nutrient content matters – people perceive high-fat, high-carb foods as more enjoyable and low-fiber, high-calorie foods as more “edible.” But what people believed about food also mattered a lot.
About the author
Graham Finlayson is Professor of Psychological Science at the University of Leeds. James Stubbs is Professor in Appetite and Energy Balance in the Faculty of Medicine and Health Psychology at the University of Leeds. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. read the original article,
Perceiving a food as sweet, fatty, or highly processed increases the likelihood of overeating, regardless of its actual nutritional content. Bitter or high-fiber foods are believed to have the opposite effect.
In one survey, we could predict 78% of the variation in people’s likelihood of overeating by combining nutrient data (41%) with beliefs about food and its sensory properties (another 38%).
In short, how we think about food affects how we eat it, as much as what’s actually in it.
This brings us to ultra-processed foods. Despite intensive investigation, classifying food as “ultra-processed” contributed little to our prediction models.
Once we accounted for nutrient content and food perceptions, the NOVA classification explained less than 2% of the variation in liking and only 4% in overeating.
This does not mean that all UPFs are harmless. Many are high in calories, low in fiber and easy to overdo. But the UPF label is a blunt instrument. This also includes fortified cereals with sweetened soft drinks, vegetarian meat substitutes with protein bars.
Some of these products may be less healthful, but others may be helpful – especially for older adults with reduced appetite, people on restricted diets or those seeking convenient nutrition.
The message that all UPFs are bad oversimplifies the issue. People don’t eat food based on food labels alone. They eat based on how food tastes, how it makes them feel, and how it matches their health, social or emotional goals.
Relying on the UPF label to shape policy may backfire. Warning labels can steer people away from foods that are actually beneficial, such as whole grain cereals, or create confusion about what is actually unhealthy.
Instead, we recommend a more informed, personalized approach:
- Promote food literacy: Help people understand what makes food satisfying, what triggers cravings, and how to recognize their individual cues for it Eat,
- Improve with intention: Design food products that are enjoyable and filling, rather than relying on bland “diet” options or overly tasty snacks.
- Address eating motivations: People eat for many reasons beyond hunger – for comfort, connection, and enjoyment. Supporting alternative habits can reduce reliance on low-quality foods while maximizing enjoyment.
It’s not just about processing
Some UPFs are worthy of concern. They are rich in calories, aggressively marketed and often sold in large portion sizes. But they are not a smoking gun.
Labeling entire categories of food as bad based solely on processing ignores the complexity of eating behavior. What drives us to eat and overeat is complex but not beyond understanding. We now have the data and models to uncover those motivations and help people create healthier, more satisfying diets.
Ultimately, the nutritional and sensory characteristics of food – and how we perceive them – matter more than whether something comes out of a packet or not. If we want to encourage better eating habits, it’s time to stop demonizing food groups and start focusing on them. Psychology Behind our choices.