The EU Must Take Action on Harmful Ultra-Processed Foods

A new study published on 21 July has once again highlighted the threat posed to public health by ultra-processed foods. (UPFs). UPFs are commonly understood to be products that are created in an industrial environment and are derived from ingredients and additives that you would not usually use in home cooking. The research, published by Frontiers in Nutrition, found that in Brazilian adults aged 30-69, roughly a third of premature deaths from heart disease occurred due to excessive consumption of UPFs.

The EU has commissioned its own study on the link between UPFs and health outcomes, promised by the end of 2026. Following its publication, the EU is expected to set out its approach to regulating UPFs.

There are already numerous pieces of published research confirming the link between UPFs and premature deaths. Along with this latest study, an article published in the Lancet’s Regional Health Europe journal last year found that UPF consumption was associated with all causes of mortality, including heart disease.

The research seems increasingly clear – UPFs are harmful – but how the EU is going to respond to this threat is less obvious.

We are yet to get much indication from the Irish presidency as to what their approach will be to tackling the harms of UPFs. When the Irish Health Minister was setting out her country’s health priorities before the European Parliament’s public health (SANT) Committee earlier this month, there wasn’t a single mention of UPFs at all, either from the minister or from MEPs.

Numerous stakeholders want the EU to get on with the job urgently. Last month, 21 organisations called on the EU’s Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi to take action on unhealthy foodstuffs including UPFs, saying that ‘policymakers must not delay action on what we already know’.

Earlier this month, it was reported that a Sugar Levy was discussed by EU ambassadors as a potential revenue option for upcoming EU budget discussions, showing that Brussels is considering public health interventions on the food we eat.

A sugar levy would be logistically easier to implement as it is much clearer what is being targeted, whereas there is not yet a clear definition on UPFs that could be adopted for regulatory purposes. The World Health Organization has emphasised this point, stating that developing a suitable regulatory definition for UPFs could prove challenging.

Currently, there are no EU-wide directives governing how UPFs are regulated. Commissioner Várhelyi has previously said that the EU would need to ‘reflect on’ proposals first floated last year to tax UPFs, but he also referenced the need for a ‘good measurement tool’ before doing so.

The EU’s Safe Hearts Plan also heavily emphasises the use of ‘financial tools’ to try and direct people towards healthier alternatives, but taxes can be tricky to find consensus on, especially at an EU wide level. Since they require unanimity at the EU Council before any proposals can proceed, it seems likely that any tax would take time to implement.

Mandating health warnings on UPF packaging to inform customers of the dangers posed by the product is one option that has been pursued by national governments within the EU and beyond.

Another proposal, which recently received bipartisan support in California, is a plan to put into law a legal definition of UPFs, which would be followed by a ban in public schools for the meals considered the most unhealthy.

These are all options that EU decision makers will be considering, but also on their minds will be the proportionality of any regulation.

One of the key themes of Ireland’s EU Council Presidency is competitiveness.