Over the past few months, it has been impossible to avoid the debate around ultra-processed foods.
According to Kantar, one in three UK households are very concerned about UPFs.
Documentaries, social media commentary and headlines have all added to the cultural chatter. But the real issue driving public anxiety isn’t processing itself – it’s trust, writes Ed Hayes, Chief Strategy Officer, Bloom. People have always consumed processed food, and the desire for convenience, affordability and pleasure is not disappearing. Many households rely on speed and predictability, and most people accept that treats have their place. What consumers object to is discovering that products presented as everyday, nourishing staples contain ingredients they assumed were reserved for occasional indulgence, or in some cases, pumped full of constituents and chemicals that are actively harmful. When something sold as wholesome turns out to be far more engineered than people assumed, trust evaporates quickly – and once that happens, it’s very hard to win back.
The backlash surrounding UPFs is rooted less in the presence of certain ingredients and more in the sense of being misled. Their existence isn’t the issue – nobody is calling for biscuits and crisps to be abolished. What’s driving concern is the sense that information has been withheld.
Brands have an opportunity to open up the conversation on UPFs, removing the stigma of ‘cheap, easy and bad for you’ and empowering people to make the right decisions for themselves. And it starts with honesty. What honesty has already shown us
Brands that confront uncomfortable truths directly tend to emerge stronger than those that attempt to manage or disguise them. The FCK campaign is a now-famous example: KFC ran out of chicken, acknowledged it directly, and used humour without deflection. Instead of losing trust, the brand gained respect for being straight with people. The situation could have been damaging; instead, openness turned it into a reputational asset. While that incident has nothing to do with UPFs, it illustrates an essential point: trust is built not through perfection, but through transparency. Consumers consistently reward brands that speak openly, because they don’t want to feel manipulated.
Applied to the UPF debate, the question for the industry is not whether processing exists – it always will to some degree – but whether companies are prepared to communicate without evasion or euphemism. On the opposite side, when belief in a brand collapses, people stop buying and they stop recommending. Restoring credibility once it is broken is slow and expensive, so it’s better to be honest upfront.
Emotional honesty
Clarity begins with acknowledging how people genuinely live and eat. Many families rely on convenience because of time, budget, or competing pressures. There is nothing shameful about that. People do not expect crisps or chocolate bars to be superfoods; no one has ever purchased a packet of Doritos under the illusion that they counted towards five-a-day. The public understands indulgence. What they reject is the conflation of indulgent products with everyday nutrition.
Emotional honesty means positioning some products as occasional choices, not daily staples. Rather than suggesting something is suitable for every day, the message might simply recognise the circumstances where convenience matters – when time has run out, when children are hungry after school, when life is chaotic. This helps to builds a relationship based on realism, not aspiration.
Functional honesty
The second piece is being explicit about purpose. If processing extends shelf life and helps reduce waste, say that. If an ingredient improves food safety, consistency, convenience, affordability or taste, articulate it clearly. People want to understand what processing is doing for them.
Functional honesty enables consumers to make an informed choice rather than forcing them to decode what is being withheld. And it sets a clear standard: if the inclusion of an ingredient cannot be justified in a way that benefits the consumer, then maybe its place in the product should be reconsidered.
If companies adopt avoidance and denial about not-so-great ingredients and processes, external pressure will eventually impose change under more hostile circumstances. It is far better to lead voluntarily than be forced to comply later down the line.
What does the future look like?
Few expect the food and beverage category to become UPF-free, and nobody believes it can happen overnight. Equally, continuing without change is no longer credible. A transparent approach to reformulation, simpler ingredient lists, clearer packaging language and gradual progress signal direction – and direction matters. Once transparency is introduced, it rarely retreats.
There is also commercial upside. As with renewable energy, once better practice aligns with economic opportunity, change accelerates. Improving products so they are more in line with what shoppers want, rather than defending the status quo positions food businesses to grow rather than protect declining territory.
Branding cannot resolve the UPF question alone. Packaging, language and communications can clarify and build understanding, but they cannot compensate for choices that consumers fundamentally reject. In some cases, reformulation or product redesign – not messaging – will be required.
What branding can do is set a tone of honesty and help rebuild confidence. Every brand can decide whether it continues to obscure uncomfortable truths or communicates openly about what products are and the role they play. This can be as simple as clearer ingredients on pack or as radical as using branding to communicate a new set of benefits both visually and verbally, such as shifting from a ‘healthy’ message to one of ‘convenience’.
The future advantage will go to those who communicate openly about what their products are, how they are made, what role they play and how they are improving. Shoppers remember the companies that speak plainly, and they turn away from those that don’t.
Comments are closed.