Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), such as crisps, ready meals, and sugary drinks, have long been blamed for health issues ranging from obesity to food addiction. Critics argue these factory-made products are designed to hijack our brain’s reward systems, prompting calls for warning labels, taxes, and even bans near schools. However, a new study from the University of Leeds, involving over 3,000 UK adults, challenges this narrative, revealing that the story behind UPFs is far more complex.

The research, conducted by Professors Graham Finlayson and James Stubbs, examined how people respond to over 400 common foods, from jacket potatoes to custard creams. Participants rated unbranded food images for likability and the likelihood of overeating, defined as eating for pleasure beyond hunger. These responses were analyzed alongside nutritional content (fat, sugar, fibre, calorie density), the Nova classification system for processing, and participants’ perceptions of the foods’ sensory qualities (e.g., sweet, fatty, or healthy).

The findings confirm that calorie-dense, high-fat, and high-carb foods are more enjoyable and prone to overeating, while low-fibre foods are particularly “bingeable.” However, a surprising discovery was the significant role of perception: foods believed to be sweet, fatty, or highly processed were more likely to trigger overeating, regardless of their actual nutritional profile. Conversely, foods perceived as bitter or high in fibre were less likely to be overconsumed. Perceptions and sensory qualities accounted for 38% of the variation in overeating tendencies, nearly matching the 41% explained by nutrient content.

Also Read: Exposed: TheTruth Behind "Eco-Friendly" Products!

Strikingly, the Nova classification of UPFs added little predictive power, explaining less than 2% of variation in food likability and 4% in overeating. This suggests that labeling a food as “ultra-processed” oversimplifies its impact. While some UPFs, like sugary drinks, are calorie-dense and easy to overconsume, others, such as fortified cereals or vegan meat alternatives, can provide valuable nutrition, particularly for older adults or those with dietary restrictions.

The study warns that blanket policies targeting UPFs, such as warning labels, risk misguiding consumers away from beneficial foods or creating confusion about what constitutes a healthy diet. Instead, the researchers advocate for a nuanced approach: enhancing food literacy to help people understand cravings and personal eating cues, reformulating products to balance enjoyment and satiety, and addressing emotional and social motivations for eating.

The findings underscore that eating behavior is driven by a complex interplay of nutritional content, sensory qualities, and individual perceptions, not merely processing levels. As policymakers and consumers navigate dietary choices, focusing on the psychology of eating rather than demonizing entire food categories could pave the way for healthier, more satisfying diets.

Also Read: Your Guide to Vitamins A-K: Sources and Benefits