Framing of ultra-processed foods in UK news media (2022–2023) and associations with quoted actors’ interests: a mixed-methods study

Increasing attention on “ultra-processed” foods (UPFs) and their health effects has sparked policy debate. News media influences public perceptions yet understanding of UPF framing and industry influence remains limited. This study analysed UPF framing in UK news media and trade press, exploring interests of quoted individuals and organisations. We systematically searched UK media for UPF articles in 2022–23, identifying 188 articles for mixed-methods content analysis. Articles were examined for their position towards classifying food by processing-level (accepted/contested/mixed). Framing Theory guided identification of UPF frames describing problem definitions, causes, and solutions. Actors’ interests were classified using academic journal guidelines. Half the articles (52%) accepted the UPF concept, 19% contested it, and 29% were mixed. Five frames were identified. The ‘Social Justice’, ‘Lifestyle Drift’, and ‘Science Report’ frames accepted the UPF concept, with the ‘Social Justice’ frame positioning UPF consumption as a structural public health problem requiring policy action such as taxes or front-of-package labelling. The ‘UPF Critique’ and ‘Market Justice’ frames contested the scientific basis of the UPF concept, proposing nutrient-based approaches instead. Among 116 named actors, 33% had UPF industry interests, with academics comprising 45% and industry spokespeople 11%. Actors with UPF industry interests were more commonly cited in contesting frames (e.g. ‘Market Justice’: 73%) than accepting frames (e.g. ‘Social Justice’: 10%). These findings highlight that industry influence on UPF media discourse is often obscured behind academic voices. Greater transparency around actor interests is urgently needed to ensure emerging UPF policies are shaped by independent evidence.