Ultra-processed foods have become one of the most debated issues in nutrition, public health and food policy.
In a recent webinar hosted by IUFoST, Ultra-Processed Foods: A Contested Concept, experts explored the challenges of defining ultra-processed foods, the evidence linking dietary patterns to health outcomes, and the implications for regulation, consumer understanding and global food systems.
AIFST Scientific Advisor, Adjunct Professor Deon Mahoney, was one of the speakers, sharing an Australian perspective on a debate that is increasingly shaping public discourse, policy development and industry decision-making.
The term “ultra-processed food” is now widely used, but its meaning remains contested. Definitions can focus on the number of ingredients, use of additives, degree of industrial transformation or the broader NOVA classification system. These distinctions matter. How ultra-processed foods are defined influences which foods are considered problematic, the dietary advice consumers receive, and the policies that may be proposed in response.
There is growing concern about diets high in foods commonly categorised as ultra-processed and their association with chronic health conditions. At the same time, there remains active scientific debate about the strength and interpretation of the evidence, the limitations of broad classification systems, and whether nutritional quality should be given greater weight than the degree of processing alone.
This is particularly relevant in Australia and across the South-West Pacific region, where the conversation intersects with food security, affordability, trade, health inequities, consumer access and the importance of culturally relevant traditional diets.
As Deon highlighted, food processing itself plays an essential role in modern food systems. Processing can help extend shelf life, improve food safety, reduce food waste, increase availability, support food security and lower costs. The challenge is not simply whether food is processed, but how future foods can be designed to support health while also considering sustainability, accessibility and economic realities.
AIFST welcomes discussion and initiatives that support better public-health outcomes. However, meaningful progress will depend on respectful, inclusive and science-based conversations that bring together public health experts, consumers, policymakers and representatives from across the agrifood sector.
Food processing is not the problem to be solved — it is a critical enabler of a healthier, safer, more sustainable and more accessible food future.
Watch the webinar, Ultra-Processed Foods: A Contested Concept, here: Ultra-Processed Foods: A Contested Concept.
