A distinguished group of researchers specializing in ultra-processed foods has collaborated on a special edition of the American Journal of Public Health, issuing a clear call to policymakers: “Do policy!”
This call to action, delivered by food politics scholar Marion Nestle during a press briefing before the issue’s launch, aligns with new polling data highlighting widespread bipartisan concerns about the health risks posed by ultra-processed foods.
Included in this edition, a survey of 2,000 U.S. adults reveals that a significant majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents view ultra-processed foods as addictive and a primary contributor to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The survey also shows broad support across these groups for government actions such as testing additives for safety, banning artificial dyes, mandating warning labels, and requiring companies to cut down on sugar and salt in their products.
“In a time of polarization where disagreement is rampant, this issue is actually one where we see considerable agreement and public backing, which should motivate policymakers,” remarked Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition epidemiologist at UNC Gillings School of Public Health. Taillie co-authored a paper in the issue on the environmental impacts of single-use plastics that wrap many ultra-processed foods.
Despite public support and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s emphasis on ultra-processed foods during his tenure as U.S. health secretary, experts argue that the federal response has been insufficient. Kennedy has pledged that the Food and Drug Administration will soon define ultra-processed foods, a task Taillie underscores as critical. “The risk is that you may only identify a small portion of the ultra-processed foods in the supply, minimizing health impacts,” she noted. Experts have endorsed the widely used Nova classification system.
According to Nestle, the Make America Healthy Again initiative is driven by emotions rather than science, placing greater value on personal anecdotes over scientific findings. In her paper for the special issue, she argues that the government’s new dietary guidelines place the onus on individuals to avoid ultra-processed foods instead of targeting industry regulation. Yet, she acknowledges some positive steps by the MAHA movement, such as efforts to remove certain additives, artificial dyes, and glyphosate from the food supply. “Advocates have been pushing for these changes for decades,” she stated. “I wish the government would take action.”
The special issue also contains studies on various topics, including how Philip Morris Companies used cigarette marketing strategies to develop Lunchables in the 1980s and 1990s, employing flavor-enhancing technologies to create appealing fat-free cheeses and processed meats. Another notable study suggests a potential link between ultra-processed food consumption and dementia in older adults, though it cautions that dietary recall surveys are often imprecise and dementia was assessed through tests rather than clinical diagnoses.
The issue also outlines strategies to challenge the dominance of ultra-processed foods in the American diet. In an editorial, Duke University obesity expert Kelly Brownell and New York University public health lawyer Jennifer Pomeranz highlight litigation from attorneys general at various levels as a valuable tool against the food industry.
Brownell noted, “One of the biggest challenges in this area will be attempts by the food industry to implement preemption laws, where the federal government overrides state or local governments’ actions.” There are already indications of the food industry’s efforts to resist state-level measures targeting ultra-processed foods.
The gathered researchers proposed several policy ideas to make fruits and vegetables more affordable and accessible. For instance, the 22 states that prohibit low-income individuals from buying soda and candy with food benefits could redirect funds to support local farmers, suggested Laura Schmidt, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies chronic disease causes. “There are significant opportunities being missed,” she said.
When asked about redirecting corn subsidies to fruit cultivation, several experts enthusiastically supported the idea.
The consensus among researchers is that merely educating people about healthy eating will not significantly impact ultra-processed food consumption and related chronic diseases.
“These products are among the most lucrative in supermarkets; the system is unfair,” Nestle commented. “Trying to eat healthily in a supermarket is like taking on the entire system by yourself.”
STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.
