HPP vs Thermal Pasteurisation: What EFSA's 2022 Opinion Found for Juices and Drinks

HPP vs pasteurisation: why the comparison matters

UK juice, smoothie and functional drink brands face a real trade-off. Heat has decades of safe use behind it, but it can dull flavour, fade colour and reduce heat-sensitive vitamins. High pressure processing (HPP) treats the product with pressure instead, at chilled or mild temperatures. In the trade it is sometimes called “cold pasteurisation”; that is shorthand, not a legal or technical definition.

The HPP vs pasteurisation question is therefore not which process is stronger on paper. It is which one gives a validated kill step for your recipe, at a quality and cost the product can carry. That decision belongs at the start of beverage development, because acidity, sugar, solids and the pack all change how each process performs. Our functional beverage formulation guide sets out the target-profile work that comes first.

This article reads one named source in detail: the European Food Safety Authority’s 2022 scientific opinion on the efficacy and safety of HPP^[1]. It is a broad regulatory-science assessment of HPP, and it sets HPP directly against legal thermal pasteurisation conditions. Two peer-reviewed reviews on juice quality^[3][4] and one on pathogen resistance in juices^[7] are read beside it.

What the EFSA 2022 opinion assessed

The European Commission asked EFSA’s Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) whether HPP is effective and safe, and whether it could stand in for pasteurisation in specific cases. The opinion was adopted on 26 January 2022 and published in the EFSA Journal (question EFSA-Q-2020-00380, 195 pages)^[1]. It is a scientific risk assessment, not a clinical or factory trial: the Panel combined systematic literature searches, predictive modelling and a questionnaire to industry and regulators.

Design and methods

Juices were not a separate question, but they run through the evidence. Industry respondents ranked acidic fruit and vegetable juices among the foods where HPP matters most, and the Panel noted that fruit and vegetable drinks are usually treated at 400 to 600 MPa for a few seconds to 5 minutes, at refrigerated or room temperature^[1].

Key results: HPP and thermal pasteurisation compared

The opinion’s headline numbers are below. The direct comparison with heat comes from the milk question, because that is where EU law defines a pasteurisation standard to compare against^[1].

How to read these numbers

Two points matter for drinks. First, “HPP is as good as pasteurisation” is not what EFSA found. HPP can meet a defined performance criterion, such as a 5-log reduction, when the pressure and time are set for the target organism and food, but it does not reproduce the margin that a legal milk pasteurisation delivers. Second, HPP leaves spores alive, so an HPP drink relies on acidity and chilled storage to keep spore-formers from growing^[1].

A 5-log reduction means a 100,000-fold fall in viable cells (99.999%). For comparison, US juice HACCP rules require juice processors to achieve at least a 5-log reduction in the most resistant pathogen of public health significance likely to occur in the juice^[9]; this matters for UK brands that also export to the US. We have not found an equivalent juice-specific log rule in Great Britain; food business operators must instead run HACCP-based procedures and validate their own critical limits^[8].

What it means for juice safety

The FSA’s MyHACCP guidance lists Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes and pathogenic E. coli as the main concerns for fruit and fruit juices, especially unpasteurised products, and notes that low pH combined with chilled storage helps control them^[6]. HPP fits that picture: it targets vegetative pathogens, and acidity and cold storage do the rest.

Recipe matters more than the process name. A 2023 review of barotolerance in juices found large differences in pressure resistance between strains of E. coli, Salmonella and L. monocytogenes, influenced by pH and soluble solids, and argued that validation studies must choose challenge organisms and conditions that reflect the actual juice^[7]. A treatment validated on a high-acid orange juice cannot be assumed to work on a lower-acid green juice or a high-Brix smoothie.

Heat has its own failure mode: it is only as good as its control. In November 2019 an outbreak of STEC O157:H7 in South Yorkshire was traced to pasteurised milk from a local dairy that failed the phosphatase test; a damaged seal on the pasteuriser’s flow diversion valve had let raw milk contaminate the product. There were 21 confirmed cases, 12 people were treated in hospital and three developed haemolytic uraemic syndrome^[2]. That was milk, not juice, but the lesson transfers: validate the kill step, monitor it continuously and verify it at release. Automated in-process monitoring is one way to do that on liquid lines^[5].

Quality: nutrients, colour and flavour

The case for HPP rests on quality. A 2025 review of HPP in juices, smoothies and purées reports better retention of micronutrients, functional components and natural colour than thermal processing, but notes that HPP affects plant enzymes indirectly and can leave enzymes active that cause off-flavours and browning, so hurdles such as low pH or cold storage are often needed^[3]. A 2024 review of high hydrostatic pressure and food composition reaches similar conclusions on nutrients^[10].

Sensory results

A narrative review of sensory studies on HPP fruit juices and smoothies published between 1995 and 2021 found that most concluded HPP combined with low-temperature storage preserved sensory properties better than thermal processing, giving “fresh-like” quality. The authors also warn that most studies used very small panels and sometimes mismatched methods and assessors, so the evidence is weaker than the headline suggests^[4]. For a brand, the practical step is to test its own product with its own consumers. Our sensory research and analytics team can design that test.

Vitamin C is the marker most brands track, because it is sensitive to heat and oxygen. Retention after processing depends on dissolved oxygen, pack and storage temperature as well as the process, so any “more vitamins than pasteurised juice” claim needs your own day-0 and end-of-life data, not a literature figure.

Shelf life, pack and cost trade-offs

Keeping time is where the two processes part commercially. Because HPP leaves spores and some enzymes active, HPP drinks are sold chilled with a date set by a shelf-life study on the real recipe and pack; see our guide to real-time and accelerated shelf-life testing. Heat can give ambient stability when combined with hot fill or aseptic packing, which the next article in this series compares.

On cost, HPP needs a dedicated pressure vessel and is usually a batch process, whereas many beverage co-packers already run heat exchangers. We have not found a published, sourced cost comparison for UK drinks, so treat any per-litre figure you are quoted as supplier-specific.

What the evidence means for UK beverage brands

• Choose by product, not fashion. A low-acid or ambient drink points towards heat; a high-acid, chilled, fresh-tasting drink towards HPP; many ranges use both.
• Validate on the real recipe and pack. EFSA found efficacy depends on pH, water activity, organism and strain, and that validation in the actual food is needed^[1][7].
• Do not claim equivalence you have not shown. HPP is not “the same as pasteurisation”; state what your validated process achieves.
• Control raw materials. Neither process rescues a heavily contaminated input; the size of the starting load decides how many servings stay contaminated after any given log reduction^[1].
• Plan the cold chain. HPP products depend on it, and hurdle design (pH, preservatives, chilling) is part of the safety case; see our article on hurdle technology for functional drinks.

Our own lab log on a cold-pressed juice prototype describes how thermal options (LTLT, HTST and UHT) were evaluated for shelf life, nutrients and sensory quality before a route was chosen.

Conclusion

HPP vs pasteurisation is a decision about validated safety first, then quality, shelf life and cost for your specific drink. EFSA’s 2022 opinion shows that HPP at 400 to 600 MPa is effective against vegetative pathogens and adds no new safety concerns, but it does not kill spores, cannot match the log reductions of legal milk pasteurisation, and has no accepted verification indicator. The reviews favour HPP for fresh-like quality; heat remains the route to ambient stability. Shortlist a route on that evidence, then prove it on your own recipe with challenge, shelf-life and consumer data.

For brands & formulators

Food Research Lab’s beverages manufacturing team helps UK brands choose and prove a process route before they commit to a co-packer. We compare HPP, pasteurisation and filling options against your recipe, pack and shelf-life target, plan the validation, and run pilot batches. We work from Chennai, India: pilot runs take place at our pilot facility, and commercial production is arranged with our network of third-party manufacturers. Challenge testing, microbiology and shelf-life testing are run or arranged through accredited partner laboratories.

Our new food product development service develops the recipe around the chosen process, our sensory research and analytics team tests whether consumers notice the quality difference, and our regulatory and scientific research team reviews process and label wording for the UK. You can also contact us with your product brief.

In this series

• HPP vs thermal pasteurisation: what EFSA’s 2022 opinion found about high pressure against heat (you are here).
• Hot fill, cold fill, aseptic and HPP: the four filling routes compared on shelf life, pack, quality and cost.
• How beverages are manufactured: the cluster guide to the full production line, from water treatment to release.
• Is cold-pressed juice safe?: pathogens, HPP and real juice outbreaks and recalls.
• Beverage manufacturing FAQ: UK questions on process, shelf life, rules and scale-up.
• Service: Beverages manufacturing at Food Research Lab.

1. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Koutsoumanis, K., Alvarez-Ordóñez, A., Bolton, D., Bover-Cid, S., Chemaly, M., Davies, R., De Cesare, A., Herman, L., et al. (2022). The efficacy and safety of high-pressure processing of food. EFSA Journal, 20(3), e07128. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7128 (the named study: scope, design, industrial conditions, log-reduction results, indicators, safety conclusions)
2. Jenkins, C., Bird, P. K., Wensley, A., Wilkinson, J., Aird, H., Mackintosh, A., Greig, D. R., Simpson, A., et al., & Incident Management Team. (2022). Outbreak of STEC O157:H7 linked to a milk pasteurisation failure at a dairy farm in England, 2019. Epidemiology and Infection, 150, e114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822000929 (21 confirmed cases, 12 hospitalised, 3 HUS; failed phosphatase test; damaged flow diversion valve seal)
3. Goraya, R. K., Singla, M., Kaura, R., Singh, C. B., & Singh, A. (2025). Exploring the impact of high pressure processing on the characteristics of processed fruit and vegetable products: A comprehensive review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 65(20), 3856–3879. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2024.2373390 (nutrient and colour retention; enzyme-related off-flavours and hurdle approaches)
4. Song, Q., Li, R., Song, X., Clausen, M. P., Orlien, V., & Giacalone, D. (2022). The effect of high-pressure processing on sensory quality and consumer acceptability of fruit juices and smoothies: A review. Food Research International, 157, 111250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111250 (sensory studies 1995–2021; HPP plus cold storage vs thermal; small-panel limitation)
5. Kyaw, K. S., Adegoke, S. C., Ajani, C. K., Nwabor, O. F., & Onyeaka, H. (2024). Toward in-process technology-aided automation for enhanced microbial food safety and quality assurance in milk and beverages processing. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 64(6), 1715–1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2118660 (automated in-process monitoring on milk and beverage lines)
6. Food Standards Agency. (n.d.). Food types and microorganisms of concern to food safety (MyHACCP). https://myhaccp.food.gov.uk/media/155/Food-types-and-microorganisms-of-concern-to-food-safety/pdf/rsfood_types_and_microorganisms_of_concern_to_food_safety.pdf (pathogens of concern in fruit and fruit juices; low pH and chilled storage)
7. Gouvea, F. S., Koutchma, T., Ferreira, E. H. R., Walter, E. H. M., & Rosenthal, A. (2023). Resistance of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes in high and low-acidity juices processed by high hydrostatic pressure. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 395, 110189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2023.110189 (strain variation in barotolerance; pH and soluble solids; challenge-organism selection)
8. Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, Article 5 (HACCP), as it has effect in Great Britain (assimilated law). legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/852/article/5 (HACCP-based procedures and critical limits)
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026). 21 CFR 120.24: Process controls. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-120/subpart-B/section-120.24 (US juice HACCP minimum 5-log reduction in the pertinent microorganism)
10. Wang, Y., Ma, C. M., Yang, Y., Wang, B., Liu, X. F., Wang, Y., Bian, X., Zhang, G., et al. (2024). Effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatment on food composition and applications in food industry: A review. Food Research International, 195, 114991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114991 (effects of HHP on nutrients and food composition)