Links between ultra processed foods (UPFs) and poorer health outcomes are rapidly being made. As Henry Dimbleby said during his closing remarks at the recent Imperial Business School UPF Policy Forum, as many as ‘94% Brits are aware they are bad for health’.
While scientific debate continues around which aspects of ultra-processing drive harm, it’s clear that today’s consumers are more concerned than ever about what goes into their products.
Transparency has been gaining momentum for several years, with a more recent shift towards food scanning apps. Modern consumers are no longer waiting for industry to tell them what’s in their food; they’re finding out for themselves.
I attended the aforementioned Forum and the conclusion was unambiguous: The policy debate has shifted from whether to act to how to act.
As regulatory and consumer pressure intensifies, the question for producers is no longer whether to respond to the scan economy, but which app (and which score) is actually worth responding to.
Lack of app harmony
Not all health scanning apps measure the same thing. Some assign a score out of 100, blending nutritional value and processing level into a proprietary score generated through an undisclosed algorithm. Others incorporate frameworks such NOVA – a system which classifies foods by the degree of industrial processing - or Nutri-Score – which rates nutritional quality – while also adding their own extra logic on top. This means the score consumers see reflects the app’s interpretation rather than the original scientific frameworks.
In my opinion, the most credible apps are those that use NOVA and Nutri-Score directly, without a proprietary layer, keeping the science transparent and independently verifiable.
On the whole, this lack of harmony means the same product can receive very different ratings across apps, depending on the methodology behind it.
There is currently no published research comparing the reliability of proprietary scoring systems with the World Health Organization (WHO) backed frameworks they are based on.
But producers will be scored either way. The question is whether the standard you are being judged against is one with a published methodology, or one that nobody outside the app can see.
When apps get it wrong
Health misinformation is already rampant — studies suggest close to half of commonly viewed health and nutrition content online is inaccurate.
The value of scanning apps lies in cutting through that noise, but in my experience using scanning apps professionally, some oversimplify complex nutritional science in ways that generate unnecessary consumer fear. Ingredients such as seed oils, for example, are frequently flagged as harmful despite a far more nuanced evidence base.
Some apps flag additives as harmful or high risk without accounting for dose, despite those same additives being classified as safe at typical consumption levels by the European Food Safety Authority and the US Food and Drug Administration. An additive that can cause harm at very high doses is not automatically dangerous in the quantities present in food.
When apps present hazard as risk and reduce that complexity to a blanket warning, they are not informing consumers – they are alarming them. And producers reformulating in response to that framing are responding to alarm, not evidence.
The food industry has largely stayed silent on nutrition misinformation, partly for fear of looking defensive. That silence has a cost: It leaves the conversation to the apps.
The opportunity in getting it right
To reformulate effectively, producers need a published standard to work against. NOVA and Nutri-Score provide exactly that; a proprietary app score with an undisclosed methodology does not.
Nutri-Score is already voluntarily adopted across seven European countries and beginning to appear on products in UK supermarkets – producers displaying a strong rating have a legitimate, evidence-based marketing position.
NOVA is not yet widely used as a front-of-pack label, creating an untapped opportunity for producers whose products are minimally processed as UPF regulation tightens.
However, therein lies tension. Research presented at the Imperial Forum found that under current UK national dietary guidelines, it is possible to consume a diet classified as healthy despite eating a large proportion of ultra-processed foods. A product can receive a Nutri-Score A and still be classified as ultra-processed under NOVA.
This is not a flaw in either system, it is a reason to use both.
When the score tells a story producers don’t want told
Companies have previously been criticised for removing Nutri-Score labels when updated algorithms downgraded their products, choosing to drop the label rather than reformulate.
The Nutri-Score scientific committee was unambiguous in response: This reflects “a conditional conception of transparency: they display the Nutri-Score on product brands when it suits them (i.e. when these products are well ranked) but not when the company considers that such transparency may be detrimental to its business interests”.
Some have launched reformulated versions with added vitamins and health claims rather than reducing the sugar content that drove the downgrade in the first place.
For producers, the lesson is clear. Engaging with evidence-based standards because your products perform well against them is a durable, defensible position. Removing the label when the science no longer flatters your product is not; and consumers and regulators are watching.
Get ahead of it
The UK government is already considering mandatory front-of-pack labelling, including Chile-style nutrient warning labels, as an alternative to the current voluntary traffic light system.
At the Imperial forum, WHO Europe confirmed it is actively developing internationally harmonised UPF policy tools, including front-of-pack labelling and taxation.
The direction of travel is clear: Tougher, standardised regulation built on NOVA and Nutri-Score – not proprietary algorithms.
NOVA is not without its critics and some researchers argue its definitions are inconsistent and that it may misclassify certain foods. But alongside Nutri-Score, it remains the most evidence-based framework available for reformulation strategy.
Producers who visibly embrace NOVA and Nutri-Score help build consumer trust in evidence-based tools, and an industry that transparently displays established classifications makes a credible case against heavier-handed regulatory intervention.
For producers whose products perform well against both NOVA and Nutri-Score, engaging with apps that use evidence-based classifications is not just the right thing to do but is increasingly a competitive advantage.
About the author
Alex Sutton is a Registered Associate Nutritionist (ANutr) with an MSc in global public health nutrition, experience in delivering nutrition education, digital strategy, and social media campaigns.
She is passionate about tackling health misinformation and improving public understanding of nutrition.
Alongside her freelance work, which includes a communications role at the Right to Food UK Commission, she is currently working as The Food App’s UK nutritionist and social media manager.
