The World Health Organization (WHO) sets global guidance on how much to eat and how often. The UN body’s done this for protein, fats and carbohydrates, as well as salt, free sugars and overall calories.
Now the WHO is setting the agenda for how much ultra-processed food (UPF) should be consumed. Since the WHO – which has been very public in its distaste for UPF – can influence national dietary guidelines, food manufacturers should pay close attention.
WHO UPF rules: What we know so far
The WHO’s research into UPF to date has not come out favourably for the processed food industry. According to the agency, UPF – alongside alcohol, tobacco and fossil fuel industries – is responsible for millions of deaths in Europe annually.
The WHO takes particular aim at ultra-processed food products such as processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and problem nutrients like salt and trans fatty acids.
Since healthy diets help lower the risk of developing diseases like cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and unhealthy diets do the opposite, the WHO is taking action. The UN agency is planning “much needed” global guidance on the consumption of UPF to sit alongside WHO’s guidance on protein, fats and carbohydrate intake.
To get there, the agency is bringing together a multidisciplinary group of experts from around the world. This group will develop a guideline made up of “evidence-informed recommendations” and “contextual information” to help policymakers in UN member states.
Who is contributing to new UPF guidelines?
The WHO has been on the hunt for experts to help develop this guidance. By now, we expect the agency to have received all applications from hopeful participants.
So what kind of person is eligible to serve on the WHO’s UPF expert panel?
To be eligible, candidates should hold an advanced degree with proven expertise in one or more relevant fields, such as nutrition science and epidemiology. Expertise in the health effects of UPF consumption is a plus. They should also have recent peer-reviewed scientific publications, and demonstrate leadership or active involvement in national or international scientific advisory bodies.
We expect the group will be made up of fluent English speakers who can help write scientific documents and work effectively with international, multidisciplinary teams.
Those selected will contribute to the scope of the guidelines and help develop recommendations on UPF consumption. They’ll also weigh up evidence to determine the risks and benefits, and work out how practical and fair the recommendations are for different people living in different environments.
How might WHO’s guidance impact consumer behaviour?
Globally, most food-based dietary guidelines align with the WHO’s recommendations on important points. These include recommendations to eat a variety of foods; to consume some foods more than others; to eat fruits, vegetables, legumes and animal-source foods; and to limit sugar fat and salt.
Also read → Ultra-processed food kills, says WHO
To take the UK as an example, the government says its dietary guidelines are “entirely in line” with evidence and advice from the WHO.
If the WHO recommends cutting back on UPF – which would not be a surprise, given its linking of UPF consumption with illness and death – national dietary guidelines could start to reflect that.
The WHO is not alone in its UPF concerns
Concerns about ultra-processed foods extend well beyond the World Health Organization.
In 2024, results from the largest study of UPF to date were published, suggesting links between consumption of ultra-processed food and 32 poor health outcomes, including death.
Earlier this year, a study claimed UPF may be responsible for tens of thousands of deaths worldwide, with a significantly worse impact in high UPF-consuming countries such as the US and UK.
What we still don’t know (but want to)
The WHO did not respond to a request for comment, leaving key questions unanswered.
Chief among them: how will the organisation define and classify processed foods? While the Nova classification system – dividing foods into four categories based on processing – remains the most widely used, it has drawn criticism for lumping together nutritionally diverse items under the ‘ultra-processed food’ label. Think fast-food burgers and chocolate bars in the same group as canned beans and packaged wholegrain bread.
The WHO has previously backed Nova, but whether it will continue to do so – or how it might reinterpret the framework – remains unclear.
We’d also like to know whether the WHO’s guidance will focus on how much processed food is safe to consume, or whether it will also include guidance on which processed foods might be safe or potentially unsafe to eat. Since we’re likely not alone, watch this space.