Soda has been under attack for decades. Children are now taught from a young age that sugary drinks are bad for you. Adults know they should reduce their sugary drink consumption, or consider lower sugary versions.
None of this is new; but the attack is now coming under a different name: UPFs.
Ultra Processed Foods
Ultra Processed Foods are those that have been highly processed away from their original, natural state.
A commonly-used definition is that they have ingredients that wouldn’t be found in a kitchen: like chemical-based preservatives, emulsifiers like hydrogenated oils, sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and artificial colors and flavors. They may also undergo substantial processing and chemical alternation that leaves the final products a long way away from their original state.
According to the Nova classification system, soda and energy drinks are considered ultra-processed.
Take an orange soda: which can typically be expected to contain HFCS and artificial colors and flavors.
But soda has already been under attack for these exact reasons for decades. Consumers already know soda is ‘unhealthy’. Whether soda is ‘unhealthy’ because of sugar and artificial ingredients or because it’s a UPF is largely irrelevant. The end result is the same: a market shift away from soda.
And in the beverage industry, this shift away from soda is already underway. Arguably, it is a lot further on in the journey than other sectors.
What consumers think about UPFs
A recent report from Lumina Intelligence surveyed 9,000+ consumers across 13 countries to understand how consumers think about UPFs.
Attitudes to soda
- 68% consider drinking water to be the most important component of a healthier diet
- 46% believe limiting sugary drinks is key to a healthy diet
- 47% of those asked consume soft drinks at least once a week (despite being UPF)
Source: ‘Future Food: How the UPF Debate is ReShaping Consumer Behaviour’.
What’s interesting about the UPF debate for beverages is that the dynamics of the category are very different.
In food, most consumers don’t clearly understand what UPFs are. Many say they avoid UPFs: but their diets suggest otherwise. A definition of a UPF remains vague and unclear to most consumers.
Some foods – such as ready meals – are acknowledged by a large proportion of consumers as UPFs. Having said that, while around 54% of shoppers consider ready meals to be UPFs, only 26% actually avoid the category, according to the report, Future Food, How the UPF debate is reshaping consumer behavior.
This statistic illustrates how UPFs are now so ingrained and accepted in Western diets: and a recent series in The Lancet says the share of UPFs in diets is on the rise. In fact, in the US and the UK, UPFs make up more than 50% of energy contribution to total daily food intake. In Spain, it has tripled from 11% to 32% over the last 30 years. In Mexico and Brazil, the figure is now around 23%.
Diets high in UPFs are linked to overeating, poor nutritional quality (too much sugar and fat, and few nutrients like vitamins, minerals, fiber and protein) and increased exposure to harmful chemicals and additives.
A systematic review conducted for The Lancet – encompassing 104 long-term studies – found 92 reported greater associated risks of chronic diseases, with meta-analyses showing significant associations for 12 health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression and early death from all causes.
The authors behind the series call for decisive public health action: in particular, policies to target UPFs while improving access to healthy alternatives.
For the beverage industry, however, many of these policies are already in play. The ultimate reason UPFs have proliferated Western diets is, of course, their price: they’re cheap and accessible and salt and sugar makes them taste good and encourages further purchases.
That’s exactly why soda has long been an easy target for sugar taxes - as well as an easy policy win. People know that soda is ‘unhealthy’: so understand why it is taxed. Revenue from the taxes can be earmarked for public health initiatives: healthy eating education in schools, for example.
And soda is a neat target: known for its ‘empty calories’ – meaning a high-calorie content with no nutritional gain – it’s a much more straight-cut policy than taxing, for example, sugary yogurts. That’s because yogurt is fundamentally considered as ‘healthy’ thanks to its protein and calcium: even though its added ingredients and processing may actually drive it towards the UPF category.
But that’s changing. The UK is extending its soda tax to milk-based drinks: that creates a clear signal consumers that sugar is a problem beyond the soda category.
The Lancet authors advocate for taxes on UPFs: noting that almost all of the current taxes on unhealthy foods specifically target sugar-sweetened beverages.
And it looks like soda taxes could even provide the playbook for UPF taxes.
Whether soda is attacked for its empty calories or UPF status, the end result is the same.
The beverage industry has already come a long way in reducing sugar: both voluntarily and as a result of legislation.
The emergence of a new Modern Soda category - which champions clean ingredients, low-sugar content and functional benefits - marks the start of a new era for the beverage industry: and a category that’s only set to keep growing.
