**Bakery and Snack Producers Caught in the UPF Crossfire: Time to Own ‘Processed’**
Bakery and snack producers are increasingly being unfairly targeted in the ultra-processed food (UPF) debate. Rather than focusing on nutrition, processing itself is portrayed as the villain. Most UPF studies show correlations—not causation—yet the public narrative, investors, and policymakers often treat these studies as definitive proof of harm.
It’s time for the industry to reclaim the word ‘processed’ by championing transparency, science, and purpose—not apologizing for the systems that safely feed billions.
### The UPF Debate: A Longtime Punch Bag with Changing Tone
The bakery and snacks sectors didn’t suddenly find themselves in the UPF spotlight; they have been the scapegoat for years. What’s changed is the tone. Today, ‘ultra-processed’ is a scarlet letter shorthand for everything perceived wrong with modern food.
Campaigners, commentators, and increasingly, lawyers, use the term to stigmatize products. Consider the lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania last year by Bryce Martinez, who accused General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, and others of marketing ultra-processed products—like Cheez-Its, Nature Valley bars, Wheat Thins, Boca Burgers, and Kraft Italian Dressing—to children, allegedly hiding long-term health risks.
Martinez claimed that a steady childhood diet of these foods led to type-2 diabetes and fatty-liver disease. While the case was dismissed in August 2025 for lacking specific evidence pinpointing which products caused the harm, the court did not dispute the idea that UPFs can contribute to chronic diseases. This dismissal is a procedural reprieve—not an exoneration—and future cases with better documentation could reopen the door.
Once such cases reach sympathetic juries, it won’t matter whether the product was a cookie, an energy bar, or fortified bread. Ingredient labels will become evidence, placing bakery and snack products in the same legal dock as sugary sodas and candy.
### Moving Goalposts and the Limits of Reformulation
What stings most is how quickly the goalposts have shifted. Previously, reformulation was the solution: reduce sugar, add fiber, remove artificial ingredients. Those efforts, done or ongoing, now seem to count for little.
Today, any product manufactured at scale is treated with suspicion. This approach is not based on science, but theater.
### The Courtroom and Beyond: UPFs as a Legal and Regulatory Weapon
The Pennsylvania lawsuit will not be the last. Lawyers see opportunities in framing ‘processed’ foods as ‘predatory.’ In discovery phases, decades of product innovation come under scrutiny: ingredient lists become exhibits, research and development notes become evidence. An academic classification system has been weaponized in court.
Regulators are also advancing this narrative. The UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) briefing on UPFs explicitly calls out chips, ice cream, biscuits, baby formula, and plant-based meat alternatives as foods that “can’t be made in a domestic kitchen”—in other words, if you need an industrial oven, you’re implicated.
For bakers and snack producers, this is guilt by association.
Europe’s new front-of-pack labeling discussions, though not naming UPFs directly, carry a political undertone: calls for ‘simpler’ or ‘more natural’ recipes bolster assumptions that complexity equals danger.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO), responsible for nutrient-profile models underpinning food marketing and labeling policies, is facing pressure to consider UPF evidence in future guidance. As these discussions influence national nutrition strategies and retailer scorecards, the UPF category edges closer to full condemnation.
### Investors Join the Fray
Investors are also paying attention. The Food Foundation’s Investor Briefing on UPFs urges asset managers to scrutinize companies based on the share of revenue from ultra-processed products.
UK pension schemes like Nest are adjusting their ESG frameworks to flag “unhealthy commodities” alongside alcohol and tobacco. This language now appears in sustainability dashboards used by retailers.
GlobalData has identified ‘heavy exposure to UPF categories’ as a top-five reputational risk for global consumer-goods brands.
Mintel analysts note a slow pivot among multinationals toward ‘process transparency’ — not to claim they are free from processing, but to demonstrate honesty. Today’s new trust currency is not about the ingredient list itself, but how confidently companies can explain it.
### The Moral Panic: Why Optics Beat Science
This is a familiar story — reminiscent of past panics over GMOs, palm oil, and advertisements for high fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) foods — but the UPF panic cuts deeper because it attacks industrial food’s very foundation.
The NOVA system—originally designed for population studies—has morphed into a moral code: the less ‘kitchen-like’ the process, the greater the presumed sin.
Yet the science is complicated. Over 100 studies linking UPFs to disease are mostly observational and riddled with confounding factors such as income, education, and lifestyle.
For example, the IARC’s recent EPIC cohort study found an association between high UPF intake and cancer risk, but its authors emphasize this does not prove causation or identify specific harmful foods. Such nuance is lost in sensational headlines.
Dr. Kantha Shelke, principal at Corvus Blue and adjunct faculty at Johns Hopkins University and MCI Management Center, warns that the term ultra-processed has been weaponized and that demonizing processing risks deepening nutritional inequality.
“If we push shelf-stable, fortified foods away from lower-income consumers,” she explains, “we don’t get better diets; we get empty cupboards.” Removing shelf life often means removing access.
### Consumer Contradictions Fuel the Panic
Consumers themselves are caught in a contradiction. A global Lumina Intelligence study found two-thirds of shoppers say they avoid UPFs, yet many regularly buy packaged bakery items, snack bars, and ready-to-eat cereals.
This isn’t hypocrisy—it’s human behavior. People want food that is convenient, affordable, and safe, but they don’t want to feel guilty about their choices.
This contradiction creates the perfect storm for moral panic. When behavior and beliefs conflict, emotions dominate—and right now, emotions are shaping policy.
### Stop Apologizing for Being ‘Processed’
The industry rarely admits this aloud, but processing is the backbone of modern food systems.
It’s how bread lasts from farm to table, how cereal stays crisp without refrigeration, and how manufacturers stabilize prices despite supply chain disruptions. This isn’t corporate trickery; it’s applied science.
The industry must draw a clearer line:
– **Necessary processing** like fermentation, stabilization, fortification.
– **Cosmetic processing** such as flavor masking and color correction.
The public deserves to understand the difference—and producers should be the ones explaining it.
Publish clear definitions, quantify the composition across your product portfolio, and highlight shifts towards more purposeful processing.
### Reframe Communication and Build Trust
The phrase ‘clean label’ has become a trap, implying that anything else is ‘dirty.’ It’s time to ditch it.
Use packaging to educate consumers instead. Simple, factual, and confident statements work:
– “Calcium propionate keeps bread safe from mold.”
– “Ascorbic acid helps dough rise consistently.”
People respond well to clarity; vagueness erodes trust.
Focus on outcomes, not optics.
Commission independent research to demonstrate your products’ real benefits—such as effects on blood sugar, satiety, and gut health.
If a snack bar genuinely improves fiber intake or a bread lowers glycemic load, that’s compelling evidence processing can serve a meaningful purpose.
### Protecting Innovation and Accessibility
Dr. Shelke’s warning should resonate: fear-driven policies risk penalizing innovations that make nutrition equitable.
If regulators and investors continue treating processing as a sin, they’ll increase prices and limit consumer choice.
Everyone loses—especially those the movement claims to protect.
Bakery and snacks don’t need to apologize for existing. These sectors feed billions, reduce waste, and make balanced eating possible for households without the time or means to cook from scratch.
Convenience isn’t a crime. Processing isn’t poison. Indulgence isn’t ignorance.
—
### Final Thoughts: Transparency, Evidence, and Conversation
The UPF debate may have started with good intentions, but it has become a witch hunt fueled by fear and silence.
The only way forward is openness, evidence, and less self-flagellation.
**It’s time for the bakery and snack industries to own ‘processed’ and lead the conversation.**
—
**Further Reading:**
– *The UPF contradiction: What consumers really do*
– Lawsuit: *Bryce Martinez v. The Kraft Heinz Company et al.*, filed December 2024, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:24-cv-05012-MRP).
– Studies:
– Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ 2024; 384.
– Vitale M, Costabile G, Testa R, et al. Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Adv Nutr. 2024 Jan; 15(1):100121.
https://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2025/11/12/the-snackdown-the-great-upf-witch-hunt/