EU launches scientific and ethical review of ultra-processed foods

Assessment could prepare the ground for regulation

The European Union has opened a formal scientific and ethical assessment of ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, in a step that could eventually affect how food products are formulated, labeled and marketed across the single market. According to Cibum, a European Commission Scoping Paper issued in July 2026 assigns the work to the Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. Their opinions are expected in the first quarter of 2027.

The review begins without a dedicated law at EU or member-state level that explicitly regulates UPFs as a separate category. It will examine scientific, social, environmental and ethical questions rather than assuming that processing alone makes a product harmful. The mandate covers the degree and type of processing, energy density, nutrients, ingredients including additives and flavorings, portion sizes, consumption frequency and a product’s contribution to essential nutrient intake.

Definitions and health evidence face scrutiny

The term ultra-processed food was introduced in 2009 by researchers at the University of São Paulo and is associated with the NOVA classification. NOVA divides food and beverages into four groups, ranging from unprocessed or minimally processed items to ultra-processed products. Although widely used in epidemiological research, the EU paper notes criticism that its criteria may not always classify an individual product consistently without subjective interpretation. Advisers must therefore assess whether existing definitions can provide an effective basis for European policy.

The Commission is also seeking a clearer judgment on research linking UPF-rich diets with overweight, obesity and non-communicable diseases, as well as observational associations with anxiety and depression. Cibum cites a study covering more than 110,000 consumers followed for 30 years that associated higher UPF consumption with a greater risk of death from any cause. The assessment will identify the strength and limits of the evidence and remaining research gaps, drawing on medicine, public health, food and nutrition science, psychology, social sciences, humanities and environmental science.

Manufacturers face a wider international policy shift

Any EU action would follow interventions already adopted elsewhere. Britain introduced restrictions on advertising “less healthy” food and drinks on 5 January 2026, including a ban on television advertising before 21:00 and on paid online advertising throughout the day. England has restricted the placement of HFSS products near store entrances, aisle ends and checkouts since 2022, and extended controls to promotions such as “3 for 2” in October 2025. Chile uses black “ALTO EN” warnings for products exceeding thresholds for calories, sugar, saturated fat or sodium, while Canada requires a front-of-package symbol on certain prepacked foods high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium.

The review does not equate approved additives with health risks. More than 300 additives are authorized in the EU following EFSA safety assessments, and the authority has re-evaluated more than 70% of the 315 additives covered by its reassessment program. The paper also recognizes that heating, drying, pasteurization, fermentation and milling can improve microbiological safety, remove toxins, extend shelf life and increase nutrient bioavailability. For manufacturers, the immediate issue is therefore not a ban but uncertainty over the future regulatory definition. A workable classification could eventually influence reformulation, portion design, package information, advertising practices and the positioning of convenient, shelf-stable products throughout the EU market.