IFBA: Incentivizing healthy consumer choices amid ultra-processed food debate
05 Feb 2026 | International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA)
The International Food and Beverage Alliance’s (IFBA) secretary-general, Rocco Renaldi, discusses ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in the context of consumer understanding, making policy practical, and improving future guidance. He notes that policy currently “demonizes” UPFs without a scientific basis. Also, debates in this space are distant from consumer reality, which the industry can help by creating new incentives for healthier food choices.
Hello and welcome to Nutrition Insight interview series.
I'm senior journalist Vina Patel, and today we'll be, we're speaking with Rocco Rinaldi, the Secretary General of the International Food and Beverage Alliance.
Today we will discuss how consumers understand ultra-processed foods and the challenges that policymakers face in shaping nutrition advice and what more science-based guidance could look like going forward.
So, thank you so much, Rocco, if you would like to introduce yourself, please.
Go ahead.
Hey, thank you for, thank you for having me.
Yes, my role is to run the International Food and Beverage Alliance.
It's a group of some of the major international companies, food manufacturing companies in the sector, and our work is focused in particular on, the global nutrition and health agenda.
Cool.
Awesome.
Let's just get started.
Like, my first question is about consumer understanding.
There's clearly a lot of confusion going on.
So what do, sorry, what do consumers most misunderstand about ultra processed foods today?
I think the concept or the at least the acronym or the term UPF has become quite ubiquitous in a in a short period of time, and I think in fact we know this from consumer research that has been done, including on a pan-European level, consumers are confused.
They don't really know what is behind the term other than it is a broad catch all phrase for let's say packaged or convenience foods.
The reality is that, there's a lot more behind, certainly the dominant definition, the Nova classification that is most widely used, which consumers, most consumers, I think have, not much, of an idea about.
Yeah, do you think the Nova classification is something that's only, spoken about.
You know, within companies and food manufacturers are not enough, and consumers and consumers should be learning more about the NAA classification.
I think the Novo classification, consumers should, should certainly be educated, about what we're talking about, but the problem is that the definition that is being mostly used, which is that Nova classification, is not one that provides, in my view, at least a useful, distinction between food products because basically, it says anything that contains an ingredient that is normally available in your kitchen cupboard.
Or that is packaged or that is marketed by a company that makes it for profit, , is a, a UPF and therefore bad.
So that means, you know, if you educate the consumer about that definition and you stand behind the definition, you're basically telling consumers avoid 70% of what you see in a typical grocery store.
So I'm not sure educating consumers about this current definition is particularly useful because the definition itself isn't one that can usefully guide consumers.
I think other than perhaps the message that you should eat more fresh produce, which is absolutely fine, but then.
We should be talking about that rather than a message that is about the avoidance of most things you see in a shop.
So making policy more practical, how can policymakers balance healthier eating advice with real world constraints such as cost, accessibility, and convenience?
Accessibility, affordability actually.
Today, in a, particularly in a context, where we've had a period of high inflation driven by, input costs.
And health, and nutrition, of course, are constant, right?
So you're right, combining those two things, is not, always obvious.
In my view, you know, we're talking about ultra processed foods or the idea of, of, of UPF, that is one of the key things, that the, the campaign, you know, against these products ignores.
It is that, packaged, shelf stable food products are what really ensures affordable nutrition for the population at large.
In fact, we would not probably have the world population we have today without the revolution first in agriculture and then in, in food manufacturing that we've had over the last century.
It's what has.
Not only sustain the population but enables the, the, the growth of, of the population and urbanization and so on and so forth.
So today we have to look at accessibility and affordability and, and health within the context of sustainable food systems.
That is, a public debate and the policy agenda that, you know, had a lot of momentum, including with the 2021, UN Food System summit in which we, we participated.
But is yet to, I think, play out, at a national level, in a sufficiently, structured and, and, and concrete way, right.
The reality today is that a few countries have a holistic food policy, so a policy that looks at the food system as a whole and and and and seeks to improve the system so that it provides those two key things that you mentioned, as as sustainability from an environmental point of view, right?
So, the, the issue is, is very complex and can only really be addressed through a holistic approach to food policy.
I think just that sort of a couple of key principles from, from my perspective.
Are that choice is fundamental, right?
The today's food supply offers the widest choice that has ever been available, and that is what sophisticated societies today expect and need.
And choice also means different.
Entry price points, you know, different, different, products or different, , wallets, let's say.
Different portions, right?
Different variants, fortified products, obviously, , the right balance of fresh, and, packaged foods.
All of this, needs to be provided, all of this needs to be provided affordably, and where health comes in, you know, when it comes to convenience foods, there is still significant scope for product formulation and innovation.
Companies are all engaged in those efforts, but we also need policy frameworks that are conducive to that, that incentivize it, you know, I'll give you an example of Europe, for example, you're not allowed, to make, , sugar reduction claims, you know, unless you reduce by 30%, right, you know.
Why not.
Incentivize reduction more with with with a with a framework that is more flexible or another example, you know, you, you, you, you can't mix, you can't mix low or no calorie sweeteners, , with with with with with an an amount of sugar and then make a claim on it.
All these are sort of regulations that are, arcane and do not flavor, do not favor innovation, right?
So that's an important piece.
The other really big piece, that we're missing, not that we're missing, that, isn't really working, is, consumer guidance and education.
Dietary guidelines exist but aren't followed by the majority of the population.
You know, the reality is, is it depends on the context, if you're speaking globally, but if you're speaking from where I am where I am today or you are today, so Belgium or the Netherlands, for example, the reality is that the food supply, offers, an enormous amount of choice.
And a lot of it, is affordable, although, as I said, we have an issue with, with, with affordability in general.
But, we also have imbalances in the diet amongst a significant section of the population.
And those imbalances are are not driven or are certainly not only driven by affordability or availability of choice.
Those can always be improved, but there's a key missing piece which is to actually and actively help consumers understand what a balanced diet is and how to compose it.
Mhm.
And so what would a more constructive science-based guidance on processed food look like going forward?
You know, I think we have existing sensible approaches, the food pyramid or the, the plate, and depending on the on the country that we're looking at, there's, you know, very established guidance that says, you know, how much of fruit, vegetables, dairy, and carbohydrate-based foods, etc.
You should consume.
And fresh produce is a key piece of that, right?
But then beyond that, I think the, the, the focus on, on processing as such.
Is not particularly useful and is misleading.
So, if, as a consumer my diet does include a sufficient amount of fruit and vegetables and other fresh produce, then the rest of the guidance, it needs to be about nutrition, not about processing.
And so I need, I need to know and understand, you know, what what balance in, in nutritional terms means, i.e.
Saturated fat, unsaturated carbohydrates, calories, and so on.
Not whether that comes from a, a, a product that according to the, the novel classification is, is, somewhat processed or highly processed, that is frankly irrelevant.
Right, and is there like a pushback from industry when it comes to like changing formulations of products to make it healthier and adhering to policies?
As I said, reformulation efforts have been underway for years, you know, as if we, we were the first to have a global phase out of industrially produced trans fats, for example, so, aligning with the World Health Organization standard, which is very strict.
We've got a a global set of sodium reduction targets.
We've achieved our 2025 targets and are now working on 2030, which are further reduction.
So these are examples of what industry is doing voluntarily, and there are myriad examples of these sort of initiatives at national level, you know, where, where we, where you bring government and industry together, you work collectively towards, targets that need to be, reflective of where the individual markets are and and the and the consumers are in those markets.
So there's no pushback on that, on the contrary, those those initiatives are useful and welcome, particularly when you're when they're structured intelligently.
And more broadly, a sensible.
Policies that incentivize these efforts are something that , that we welcome, where where where we disagree is policies, recommendations, guidelines that demonize, stigmatize products without being fully and unequivocally based on a scientific on on on robust scientific evidence and consensus.
And this is in our view, currently the case when we're talking about UPF.
And is there anything else that you think is missing from current public debate on processed foods and nutrition policy?
I think the the the the most important piece that is, that is missing in debate is because policy debates are often a little bit too distant from the consumer reality.
So, and this is where companies, industry can be helpful, which is to help provide an understanding of how consumers actually make their choices and and and therefore, what are the tools, what are the levers to incentivize different choices.
I, you'll notice I talk a lot about incentivization.
Because I'm, I'm not a believer in, in prohibition, right, and even on things like, health warnings on PAC or whatever, we've seen around the world that, they, they don't work in terms of changing health outcomes.
So I think, how to incentivize consumer behavior changes.
And actual real consumer insights into what drives consumers to make choices is a really under.
Under exploited area.
Rocco, thank you so much for your time and walking us through some of the complexities behind ultra processed foods and public health guidance, and thank you to our audience for joining us as , and we look forward to seeing you next time.
Thank you very much.
