Reformulated but still “ultra-processed”? Inside the UPF classification dilemma

F&B manufacturers are reducing sugar or sodium levels in products to improve their nutritional profiles, but that does not necessarily mean the process of reformulation will lead to a change in classification. 

Reformulating out of the “ultra-processed” (UPF) category is complicated, partly because there is no universally accepted understanding of what “ultra-processed” actually means. Moreover, different frameworks can classify the same food differently.

Nova, an internationally recognized food classification system, divides foods into four groups according to the extent and purpose of processing. Certain ingredients serve as markers of ultra-processing, meaning reducing sugar or salt may leave a product’s classification unchanged.

Meanwhile, the US FDA and USDA are developing a federal definition of UPFs to establish consistent criteria for identifying these products. The proposed white paper is still under review, leaving manufacturers uncertain about the criteria that will inform future US policy.

So, what does successful reformulation look like for manufacturers? Danone tells Food Ingredients First that it does not use UPF classifications to assess its portfolio, instead emphasizing nutritional composition.

“There is no universally agreed definition of UPF among scientists and academics, and we believe this terminology can create unhelpful confusion for shoppers,” a company spokesperson explains.

“Therefore, we don’t use UPF classifications to assess our portfolio.”

Competing reformulation pressures

Annenberg Public Policy Center research found this year that 80% of US adults say they favor UPF labeling and 76% say they back removing petroleum-based or artificial food dyes.

Interestingly, support for the government’s most popular food-related proposals extends well beyond those identifying as Make America Healthy Again supporters.

The trend is not limited to the US — most consumers globally say they scrutinize ingredients on product labels. Innova Market Insights discovered this year that 59% say they read all or most nutrition information on packs.

Sugar attracts the most attention, followed by protein and fat. Manufacturers consequently face demands concerning both ingredient choices and nutritional composition.

A healthier nutritional profile does not guarantee escaping the “ultra-processed” label, complicating how reformulation success is measured.Marie Latulippe, senior director of Science Programs at the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS), helps us understand this challenge. She says that nutritional improvements and changes in processing classification do not necessarily move together.

“A product can move between processing categories without any change in nutritional quality, and a nutritional improvement may not change its ‘processing category’ at all,” she explains.

Added fiber illustrates the potential conflict. Latulippe argues that, in the US, where fiber intake needs to increase, removing added fiber because it may place a product in a highly processed category may not be the priority reformulation target.

Ingredient list simplification also requires separate consideration, she says. Some added ingredients serve nutritional or functional purposes, so removing them does not automatically improve the product.

“The ingredient label shows formulation but not the processing steps, so most systems rely on ingredients as ‘markers’ of processing.”

“A shorter list isn’t a reliable proxy for a healthier product, and a longer one isn’t a reliable sign of a worse one.”

Rebuilding the formulation

For Cargill, nutritional improvements must work alongside the taste, texture, convenience, and affordability consumers expect. Burcu Keskiner, Food & Bev category senior director at the company, says these priorities remain central to customer briefs amid UPF scrutiny.

“We start by understanding what the customer is trying to achieve and, just as importantly, what they cannot afford to lose,” she tells Food Ingredients First.

Reducing sugar or sodium can affect flavor, body, and texture, requiring developers to adjust the wider recipe. Sugar reduction illustrates why ingredients cannot always be considered individually.

“Sugar doesn’t only contribute sweetness. Depending on the product, it can also influence bulk, texture, moisture, browning, and stability.”

Cargill’s BBQ sauce prototype for Fi Europe 2026 illustrates this approach. It contains approximately 30% less sugar and sodium than the reference formulation while retaining a satisfying texture and familiar BBQ character.

The team achieved this by reconsidering the flavor profile as a whole, rather than simply replacing sugar and salt. Cargill presents it as an example of balancing nutritional goals with product performance, rather than an assessment of UPF classification.

A reduced-salt potato chip prototype takes a different route. It uses Alberger salt, whose hollow, pyramid-shaped crystals dissolve quickly on the tongue to help deliver perceived saltiness with less salt. Salt usage falls from approximately 1.05% to 0.7% compared with the reference formulation.As manufacturers reduce sugar, salt, and additives, conflicting UPF definitions raise questions about what makes food healthier.

“The example demonstrates a change to the product’s nutritional composition; it was not developed to change the ingredient label or UPF classification. We have not assessed whether its UPF classification would differ,” says Keskiner.

These product concepts show how formulation changes can pursue measurable nutritional targets while leaving the separate question of processing classification unassessed.

Danone prioritizes nutritional composition

Danone says its reformulation priorities combine sugar reduction, particularly in children’s products, with innovation in high-protein foods, plant-based products, and gut health.

“We’re incorporating the latest knowledge in nutritional science… while continuing to reformulate our products to reduce sugar content, especially for children,” the company spokesperson says.

As an example of its formulation approach, the company points to plant-based products fortified with five nutrients: calcium, vitamin D, iodine, and vitamins B12 and B2. Danone says this supports consumers in incorporating more plant-based foods into their diets while addressing nutrient deficiencies.

“When making decisions about food and drink, it’s important to look at the complete nutritional profile of a product,” the spokesperson says.

Measuring reformulation success

Defining the intended improvement provides a starting point for assessing reformulation. Nutritional changes need to be evaluated alongside sensory acceptance, shelf life, cost, and manufacturing performance, with processing classification considered separately.

For Keskiner at Cargill, success depends on delivering an improvement that survives the transition from development to commercial production.

“It is about delivering a meaningful improvement that is scientifically sound, works for consumers, and can be manufactured reliably and affordably at scale,” she says.

However, improvements to individual products also need to be considered within wider consumption patterns. Latulippe at IAFNS cautions that “reformulation does not necessarily translate to improved dietary quality, even when that reformulation creates more healthful products.”

Latulippe says IAFNS’s nine guiding principles do not endorse a single classification system. Instead, they ask whether systems are transparent, evidence-based, and clearly distinguish processing from formulation.

For manufacturers, she says, investment decisions should consider the intended health benefit, the strength and limitations of supporting evidence, consumption patterns, and the needs of the target market.