Contents
Addressing dietary disparities and reducing the consumption of ultra-processed foods
For several years now, France has been experiencing high inflation, which has been particularly pronounced in the food sector. This situation has widened food inequality among the French population, as shown by the Institut Montaigne in its 2024 report in which iQo participated.
On the social front, the inflation crisis has exacerbated an already concerning situation regarding access to food. Faced with rising fixed expenses—housing, energy, and transportation—food has become the area where the lowest-income households cut back to balance their budgets. One in three French people is currently food insecure.
A growing reliance on ultra-processed foods
According to ANSES data (INCA 3 study) show that ultra-processed foods account for:
- 30 to 35 percent of the energy intake of French adults, a trend that is particularly pronounced among people from the lowest socioeconomic groups.
- Up to 45% among adolescents.
This reliance on ultra-processed foods is also more prevalent in urban areas, among low-income households, and among those pressed for time.
It is estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the items on supermarket shelves today are ultra-processed foods.
Widespread throughout the agri-food production chain, this extensive food processing currently represents a regulatory blind spot, despite major health, economic, and industrial implications.
Targeted but Incomplete Nutrition Policies to Reduce Ultra-Processed Foods
Public initiatives related to food—NutriScore, Éco-Score, PNNS—have primarily focused on the nutritional composition of products (fat, sugar, salt) or their environmental impact. More recently, the Institut Montaigne has proposed a tax on added sugarsas an economic deterrent. However, none of these measures currently includes the industrial processing of food as a standalone evaluation criterion.
Scientific studies confirm the negative health effects of ultra-processed foods
Yet scientific studies point in the same direction. Research published by INSERM, INRAE, or Harvard School of Public Health demonstrate a clear link between regular consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and an increased risk of chronic diseases (obesity, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular disorders). In addition to these health effects, there are significant indirect costs to the public health system.
Every year, new scientific studies cast a negative light on substances found in many ultra-processed foods. Following the debate over nitrite salts (found in industrially produced deli meats) and artificial sweeteners, the focus is now on soy (in its ultra-refined or textured forms) and cheese-melting agents that are at the center of controversy. These repeated allegations are creating growing reputational pressure for brands, which find themselves exposed to consumer criticism and media skepticism.
Three High-Impact Issues in the Food Industry's Ultra-Transformation: Economy, Health, and Reputation
Reducing ultra-processing is not just a public health goal; it is also a strategic decision on multiple levels.
- Economic: Industrial transformation relies on complex supply chains—standardized recipes, technical processes, quality controls, appropriate packaging, and optimized logistics. Returning to simpler recipes may, over time, help reduce certain costly steps (particularly those involving additives, equipment, or quality controls) and facilitate a partial relocation of supply chains.
- Public Health: By incorporating food processing as a variable in public policy, government authorities gain an additional tool to complement traditional nutrition policies—one that can better reflect the overall quality of food, though this must be qualified by the potential impact of reducing food additives on certain contaminants (e.g., Listeria, botulism, etc.).
- Reputation and brand image: Every controversy surrounding a substance (nitrite salt, textured soy protein, artificial sweeteners, etc.) sends shockwaves through the industry. Companies that fail to anticipate these shifts in public opinion risk losing their consumers’ trust. Conversely, those that proactively reduce their level of processing enhance their image, strengthen their relationships with retailers, and align themselves with consumer expectations.
Underestimated Economic and Industrial Potential
Including the degree of processing in food policies would make it possible to move beyond a strictly nutritional or environmental interpretation of product quality. This would involve developing a more systemic approach that incorporates the nature of industrial processes as a factor explaining health risks, environmental impact, and societal costs.
This could also pave the way for a form of “qualitative” reshoring: less-processed products are generally less reliant on imported or synthetic ingredients, better suited to short supply chains, and often easier to align with consumers’ growing expectations (naturalness, transparency, simplicity).
Barriers to Overcome: Market Structure and Regulatory Framework
Despite this potential, several obstacles are hindering the transition to less-processed products.
- The first is regulatory: the very definition of “ultra-processing” remains a matter of debate. The NOVA classification system, now the scientific standard, has still not been incorporated into European or French regulatory frameworks. This prevents its use in labeling systems (such as Nutri-Score) or in criteria for public funding of food innovation.
- On the industrial side, the resistance is structural. Ultra-processing is a model for optimizing the production chain, featuring standardized formulations, extended shelf lives, and reduced unit costs. The associated processes (homogenization, extrusion, the addition of additives, and retexturization) enable precise management of yields, inventory, and perceived quality. A return to less-processed products means challenging these balances. This entails investments in R&D, adjustments to production lines, sourcing new, more raw ingredients—which are often more expensive and more perishable—and redefining product marketing.
However, continuing to rely heavily on ultra-processing amounts to offloading part of the cost: health-related costs (through the healthcare system), environmental costs (importing synthetic or exotic ingredients), and reputational costs (crises related to additives or industrial practices). The issue is therefore not only technical; it is also strategic.
What steps can manufacturers take to reduce ultra-processing in food?
- This means incorporating transformation challenges into their strategic plan—just as they do with the green transition or digitalization—anticipating potential regulatory changes by proactively aligning with emerging criteria (NOVA, clean label, natural ingredients), and repositioning their brand image by emphasizing naturalness, simple recipes, and transparent processes.
- From a business perspective, rethinking both product innovation and production methods appears to be essential. This involves simpler formulations—free of controversial additives—and the use of gentler processes (fermentation, slow cooking, high pressure). At the same time, companies should shift their sourcing toward more natural and locally sourced ingredients and make production lines more flexible to handle less standardized raw materials.
- Marketing and communications teams will be tasked with highlighting efforts toward simplification (clean label, natural ingredients, transparency) and supporting customers and consumers through this transition without making them feel guilty. At the same time, manufacturers must work collectively with retailers, innovative startups, agricultural sectors, and government agencies to establish clear standards, share best practices, and accelerate the shift toward higher-quality products.
Conclusion
Ultra-processing of food is a strategic issue that has yet to be adequately addressed in French food policies. By incorporating it into measurement, incentive, and regulatory tools, it would be possible to improve the overall quality of the food supply, stimulate responsible innovation in the agri-food industry, and better meet consumers’ growing expectations regarding health, naturalness, and trust.
But this transition will not happen without public support. Today, eating habits are shaped by significant constraints: less time to cook, a desire for convenience, and budget pressures. In this context, ultra-processed foods retain a competitive advantage. Without strong incentives to transform the industrial model—such as R&D grants, differentiated taxation, and consumer education—change will remain limited.
EcoVadis Assessment: iQo Earns Gold Certification for Its CSR Strategy
EcoVadis Gold for our CSR commitments, with a score of 82/100. We are proud to share with you this distinction awarded by EcoVadis. This places iQo among the top 2%
Food divide: the Institut Montaigne report
The fruit of a collegial analysis, in which iQo participated, discover the complete report on the Fracture Alimentaire by the Institut Montaigne. Contents Presentation of the Fracture Alimentaire report La France face à
NumAlim, or how to make nutritional information more transparent
4,000 products already listed on NumAlim (as of late 2021), 250,000 listings expected, and 25 million aggregated data points by 2023: the goals of the NumAlim platform, which was officially launched
