The What, How, and Why of Ultraprocessed Foods

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are having a real moment. Few recent topics in public health and nutrition science have caused such a stir within the research community — and now, in the news, on social media, and in Congress — like these ubiquitous industrial formulations.

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has made UPFs a central focus of his agenda to “make America healthy again.” Earlier in 2024, lawmakers from the other side of the political spectrum — led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — proposed legislation to put warning labels on UPFs, restrict the way they’re marketed to children, and increase funding for scientific research on UPFs and health. It was the first time the use of the term “ultraprocessed food” was recorded in Congress (a rudimentary search within the legislative record for the terms “sodium,” “sugar,” and “saturated fat,” which are often highly concentrated within UPFs, yielded nearly 1,500 unique results since the early 1970s).

Historically, support for government interventions to reduce chronic diseases by regulating the food system was concentrated among those left of center, though it seems now that that ideological distinction may have partially eroded. Indeed, liberal Democrats and Trump nominees make unusual bedfellows, but the topic of UPF regulation may be just as irresistible as the foods it targets. Whether this will lead to any real policy change, however, is a different story.

The concept of ultraprocessed foods was first introduced to the scientific literature in 2009 by a team of Brazilian scientists, led by Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, who recognized the need to adapt our understanding of dietary health to the rapidly evolving food system. The idea was that not only should we focus on what is in a food (e.g., sugar, salt, fat), but how that food is made, and, critically, why we make it.

The researchers converged on a system, called NOVA, which categorizes foods into four groups based on their processing. The fourth group, ultraprocessed foods, are industrial formulations of substances derived from foods with additives to improve their taste, texture, and stability. Sodas, chips, candy, and pre-packaged and frozen dishes are all examples of these foods. In the U.S., the majority of all the calories we consume come from ultraprocessed foods — and this appears to be increasing.

Why does this matter? Higher consumption of ultraprocessed foods appears to increase the risk of premature mortality and of disease, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and anxiety disorders. To some, this may not be surprising. Diets high in ultraprocessed foods tend to contain lots of the stuff we want to avoid, like added sugars, salt, and saturated fats, while having little of what we need, including lean protein, fiber, and some key vitamins and minerals. But recent experimental evidence from the only major human trial of UPF consumption suggests that there is something else going on — independent of the effects of these nutrients, people who eat more ultraprocessed foods tend to eat more in general, suggesting a hedonic response to these industrial formulations.

There is also emerging research that aims to understand whether there are specific types of UPFs that are driving these associations, given the breadth of products within this category — ranging from cookies and candy to some sweetened yogurts and store-bought breads. What we are finding is that many UPF subgroups independently increase risks for chronic disease, and that the benefits of reducing our overall UPF consumption exceeds the benefit of just focusing on specific subgroups.

While we continue to explore biological mechanisms to explain the health impacts of UPFs (a critical inquiry, no doubt), there is less focus on what role ultraprocessed foods play in the broader political economy. This gets to the how and why of ultraprocessed foods, which is really at the heart of the paradigm shift.

Large multinational corporations have flooded our food system with heavily marketed, likely addictive, highly profitable products, and they undoubtedly seek to protect these profits by casting doubt on the very real effects of ultraprocessed foods on people and on the planet. That may help explain why the legislation drafted by Sanders made direct comparisons between ultraprocessed foods and the tobacco industry.

In fact, large tobacco companies appear to have had a significant influence over the proliferation of these UPFs in our food system. You can find a thoroughly researched history of this connection in a recent, first-of-its-kind lawsuit filed against many of the largest food and beverage companies, in which the plaintiff alleges the companies heavily marketed knowingly addictive products leading to debilitating chronic diseases. (The causes of action include several violations of consumer protection laws, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy).

Compared to Mexico, Canada, Australia, and the U.K., the American populace appears to be the least supportive of regulating their foods and beverages. Meanwhile, the recent Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee basically punted on the issue of UPFs, suggesting the evidence was not yet up to snuff to make specific claims against ultraprocessed foods. For myself and other colleagues who focus on the how and why of ultraprocessed foods, this was a big miss. Promoting diets lower in ultraprocessed foods is a critical component of public health nutrition in the 21st century, along with marketing restrictions, warning labels, sugary beverage taxes, and subsidies for healthier options.

Making big strides to reduce the impact of ultraprocessed foods on the American public requires political willpower, particularly in the face of significant industry opposition. Will the current attention toward ultraprocessed foods contribute to this willpower? Or will the powerful food lobby prevent progress and continue to fuel our addiction? Time will tell.

Daniel A. Zaltz, PhD, MPH, is a social and behavioral scientist who studies global food policies and their impacts on different groups of people. He is currently a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine. You can learn more about his work at www.danielzaltz.com.