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

Background There has been increasing attention on the health effects of foods classified as "ultra-processed" (UPFs), with ongoing debate about the implications for policy. News media are known to influence public perceptions and perceived importance of action. Yet, there is a lack of understanding of how UPFs are framed in the media and how the UPF industry may contribute to this framing. This study aimed to analyse the framing of UPFs in UK news media and trade press and explore the interests of individuals and organisations quoted in articles. Methods and Findings We systematically searched UK news media and trade press for articles which discussed UPFs in 2022-23. After screening, 188 articles were identified and analysed using thematic content analysis. Article text was examined for its position towards the concept of classifying food by processing-level (accepted/contested/mixed). Framing Theory guided the identification of UPF frames, which described patterns in how the problem was described, the proposed causes of the problem and suggested solutions. The interests of named actors quoted in the articles were classified using the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) declaration of interests form and categorised into three groups: "Interests: UPF industry related", "Interests: not UPF industry related" and "No interests apparent". Half of the articles accepted the concept of classifying food by processing-level (52%), 19% contested it and 29% were mixed. Five UPF frames were identified. The frames ranged from presenting UPF harms as a systemic issue requiring governmental policy action (frame 1) to questioning the UPF concept (frame 4) and additionally highlighting the benefits of UPFs and proposing nutrient-based policy approaches including reformulation (frame 5). There were 116 named actors in the articles, of which 33% had UPF industry interests. Of this group, 45% were academics and 11% were industry spokespeople. Actors with UPF industry interests were more commonly cited in frames that contested the UPF concept (e.g. Frame 5: 73%) than accepted it (e.g. Frame 1: 10%). Conclusions This analysis found that half of the articles framed UPFs as an important, structural challenge to public health, proposing policy action. However, a fifth contested the UPF concept. Since academics made up the largest proportion of actors with UPF industry related interests and were more likely to be cited in frames that contested the UPF concept, this research highlights the need for closer attention to the interests of actors discussing public health topics in the media.