Global pharmaceutical leader Roche has finalized an unprecedented $5.3 billion licensing deal with Danish biotech company Zealand Pharma, marking a significant move in the obesity drug sector. The agreement revolves around petrelintide, an innovative treatment derived from the hormone amylin, which helps extend satiety. Roche and Zealand plan to develop the drug both independently and alongside Roche’s investigational obesity treatment. This strategic partnership highlights Roche’s commitment to gaining a foothold in the rapidly expanding weight-loss industry, which analysts estimate could reach a valuation of $80 billion to $140 billion.
This major collaboration is a symptom of the urgent need to tackle escalating obesity rates and the various underlying causes. One frequently debated factor is excessive calorie consumption, often linked to modern diets dominated by ultra-processed foods (UPFs). While UPFs are frequently blamed for fueling the obesity crisis, this viewpoint oversimplifies a complex issue and overlooks key scientific nuances. As research continues to unfold, it is essential to move beyond alarmist rhetoric and adopt a more evidence-based perspective on food processing and its role in public health.
The UPF debate: science or scaremongering?
A recent meta-study by the French food safety agency ANSES underscores the lack of definitive scientific proof linking ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes. The study, based on the widely used NOVA classification system, examined the relationship between UPF consumption and health risks. ANSES found that while high UPF consumption might correlate with health issues, the evidence is weak, and the NOVA classification itself has significant limitations.
The NOVA system categorizes foods based on the presence of additives and industrial processes without differentiating between their actual nutritional value. This leads to misleading conclusions—lumping together nutrient-rich foods like wholegrain bread and fortified breakfast cereals with high-fat, high-sugar snacks. ANSES ultimately concluded that current food classification models cannot be directly translated into health risks, nor should they be used as the basis for public health recommendations.
The danger of oversimplified narratives
The vilification of UPFs obscures more pressing dietary issues. A balanced diet and an active lifestyle remain the most effective ways to maintain health, yet much of the public discourse around food processing ignores this fundamental principle. EIT Food, an EU-funded food innovation initiative, has attempted to inject some much-needed nuance into the conversation, reminding the public that UPFs are not inherently unhealthy. For instance, baked beans, wholegrain breakfast cereals, and plant-based meat substitutes are all classified as UPFs yet provide essential nutrients.
Plant-based meat alternatives are a prime example of foods getting caught in the crossfire. These products have been found to offer multiple health benefits, including lower saturated fat content and higher fiber intake compared to conventional meat. They are also central to the EU’s sustainability efforts, as plant-based diets are associated with a reduced environmental footprint. However, thanks to persistent misinformation, more than half of European consumers avoid these alternatives due to fears about food processing.
Similarly, wholegrain bread—a staple of a healthy diet—is considered a UPF, despite its well-documented health benefits. The reductionist approach of labeling all UPFs as unhealthy fails to acknowledge the diversity within this category. The real issue is not processing itself but the overall composition of a diet.
As such, one of the most damaging misconceptions in public discourse is the conflation of UPFs with foods that are high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS). While many HFSS products are ultra-processed, not all UPFs fall into this category. This confusion has led to widespread fear-mongering that risks pushing consumers away from scientifically backed dietary recommendations.
A striking paradox exists in European consumer attitudes: nearly two-thirds believe UPFs are unhealthy, yet they vastly underestimate the proportion of their own diet that consists of these foods. As the urgency to combat obesity grows, misinformation about UPFs could inadvertently discourage people from making healthier choices.
A question of lifestyle
Roche’s multi-billion-dollar bet on obesity drugs reflects the pharmaceutical industry’s recognition of a growing public health crisis. However, tackling obesity requires more than just medical interventions—it demands a reassessment of how diet and nutrition are understood. Demonizing UPFs is not only unscientific but also counterproductive. Instead of fostering fear, public health efforts should focus on promoting well-rounded diets, encouraging physical activity, and addressing the broader societal factors that contribute to unhealthy lifestyles.