At the World Sugar Research Organisation (WSRO) Annual Meeting in Verona, Pietro Paganini challenged one of the most dominant narratives in today’s food and public health debate: processing itself is not the enemy. 

Speaking during a panel on ultra-processed foods (UPFs), Paganini argued that public health policies cannot be built on simplistic labels, fear-based classifications, or one-size-fits-all approaches. The real issue is not whether a food is “processed,” but how it is consumed: in what quantity, how frequently, within which dietary pattern, lifestyle, food matrix, and with what measurable health outcomes. As nutrition enters the age of data and artificial intelligence, prevention must evolve from food demonization toward smarter, more personalized strategies based on health literacy, positive nutrition, consumer empowerment, and AI-driven prevention.

The discussion brought together distinguished food policy experts, including Marcia Terra, Advisory Board Member at the National Association for Diabetic Care, in São Paulo, Brazil,  Dr. Ros Miller, Scientific Affairs Manager at WSRO, and Annie Denny, CEO of WSRO, to discuss the future of nutrition and public health prevention.

Key Takeaways

• Food processing has always been part of human civilisation: enabling preservation, improving safety, expanding accessibility, supporting innovation, and shaping the way people experience food, culture, and pleasure.
• We do not need a definition. We need an algorithm: smarter AI-driven tools that help people understand not just what they eat, but how much, how often, in which food matrix, with how much movement, and according to their personal health needs and lifestyle context.
• The alternative is not inaction: it is smarter prevention built on food literacy, positive nutrition, movement, AI, wearable technologies, personalized prevention, and consumer empowerment.

From Food Labels to Food Intelligence

A classification created for research can quickly become a regulatory shortcut, shaping warning labels, taxes, restrictions, advertising rules, procurement policies, and reputational pressure across the food system. Once this happens, the debate slowly shifts from understanding food to managing behaviour.

Processing itself is not the enemy. Humans have always processed food through cooking, drying, fermenting, grinding, baking, preserving, freezing, and pasteurizing. Processing has improved safety, extended shelf life, expanded accessibility, supported innovation, and transformed the way societies experience food, culture, and pleasure.

The real question is not whether a food is processed, but how much is consumed, how often, within which diet and lifestyle, combined with how much movement, for which personal needs, and with what real health outcomes.

A rigid UPF definition cannot fully answer these questions. Smarter algorithms potentially can.

Definitions may help research and monitoring. But people do not live inside classifications. They live inside habits, routines, constraints, budgets, cultures, pleasures, and bodies. A static category cannot fully capture portion size, frequency, total diet, physical activity, sleep, stress, metabolic variability, or individual goals.

Smarter Prevention, Not Simpler Narratives

This is why the future of prevention cannot rely only on classifying food. It should focus on helping people make better decisions in real life through better information, better tools, and a deeper understanding of health behaviours.

The UPF debate also risks repeating a familiar mistake in nutrition policy: reducing a complex public health challenge to one highly visible target. Politically, this is attractive because it creates simple messages and easy narratives. But simplification is not the same as understanding.

Obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and other non-communicable diseases are complex and multifactorial. They cannot realistically be explained by one nutrient, one ingredient, one product category, or one processing classification alone.

This does not mean all products are equal. It means public policy should remain proportionate, evidence-based, and capable of distinguishing symbolic actions from measurable health outcomes.

The Future of Prevention Needs Better Tools

The future of prevention should move beyond simplistic food classifications and toward smarter, more personalized health strategies based on food literacy, positive nutrition, movement, responsible innovation, AI, wearable technologies, and consumer empowerment.

Food is not just chemistry. Food is biology, culture, technology, pleasure, identity, responsibility, and choice.

This is why UPFs should not become the new tobacco. Food is not tobacco: it is essential to life and deeply connected to human experience, social relations, and cultural identity. The question is not whether some products should be improved, consumed less frequently, or better understood.

The real challenge is deciding what kind of public health model we want to build: one based primarily on fear, warning labels, and static classifications, or one built on knowledge, personalization, innovation, and better tools.