Two-thirds of what teenagers eat is ultra processed. That is not a personal failing, it is a system problem.

A study published in the European Journal of Nutrition in July 2024 confirmed what many working in school food have long suspected: ultra-processed foods now account for nearly two-thirds, 65.9%, of the total calorie intake of UK adolescents. The research, led by the University of Cambridge and the University of Bristol, analysed food diary data from almost 3,000 young people collected through the National Diet and Nutrition Survey between 2008 and 2019.¹

That figure alone is striking. But what the study also found is perhaps more instructive. Ultra-processed food consumption was consistently higher among adolescents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and among those from white ethnic groups. In other words, the problem is not distributed evenly, it clusters around disadvantage. This is not a story about individual choices. It is a story about the environments in which young people live, and what those environments make easy or hard to eat.

What are ultra-processed foods, and why does it matter?

Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations made largely from substances extracted from foods, fats, starches, sugars, proteins, combined with additives designed to enhance palatability, appearance and shelf life. They include packaged snacks, fizzy drinks, ready meals, processed meats and much of what is available in secondary school vending machines and canteens operating on tight margins.

The health implications are significant and increasingly well evidenced. A major umbrella review published in the British Medical Journal in 2024, drawing on data from 45 meta-analyses, found that higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with a 50% higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality, a 12% greater risk of type 2 diabetes, and a 48–53% higher risk of anxiety and mental health conditions.² These are not marginal associations.

The secondary school problem

Secondary schools represent a particularly important site of intervention — and a particularly difficult one. Unlike primary schools, where a single school meal is often the norm, secondary school food culture is characterised by what the sector calls "grab and go": students making multiple food decisions across a school day, from vending machines, tuck shops, canteen counters and, for many, the local high street at lunchtime.

The Department for Education's own proposed update to the School Food Standards, currently out for consultation, acknowledges this directly. It notes that up to 70% of calories consumed by pupils in secondary school settings come from ultra-processed foods, and that the current standards, last updated in 2014, are no longer adequate to address this reality.³ The proposed changes, expected to be implemented from September 2027 for primary schools and September 2028 for secondary schools, would for the first time set specific requirements around fibre, restrict certain ultra-processed ingredients and extend standards to cover the whole school day including breakfast and mid-morning breaks.

This is not about banning things, it is about changing defaults

The temptation, in discussions about ultra-processed food in schools, is to reach for prohibition. Remove the vending machines. Ban crisps. The evidence suggests this is insufficient on its own, and can produce resentment among young people who feel policed rather than supported.

What works, increasingly, is changing what is easy, available and appealing — not what is technically permitted. Research into effective school food interventions points consistently to the importance of the whole food environment: how food is displayed and served, whether students have time to eat a proper lunch, whether school food is designed to be genuinely attractive to teenagers rather than merely compliant with nutritional rules, and whether young people themselves have had any say in what is on offer.

These are the conditions that organisations in NWF's portfolio are working to change, from improving kitchen infrastructure and chef skills, to engaging young people directly in shaping the food culture of their schools, to building the evidence base that policy-makers need to act with confidence. The Cambridge and Bristol study ends with a straightforward conclusion: given that ultra-processed foods make up the majority of adolescents' diets, "their consumption is at a much higher level than is ideal, given their potential negative health impacts." That conclusion demands a systemic response, not a personal one.

Sources:

1. Chavez-Ugalde, I.Y. et al. (2024). 'Ultra-processed food consumption in UK adolescents: distribution, trends, and sociodemographic correlates using the National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2008/09 to 2018/19.' European Journal of Nutrition, 63(7), 2709–2723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-024-03458-z

2. Lane, M.M. et al. (2024). 'Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses.' BMJ, 384, e077310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310

3. Department for Education. (2026). 'School Food Standards: Updating the Legislative Framework.' Government consultation. https://consult.education.gov.uk/school-food-policy-team/school-food-standards-updating-the-leg-framework/