Ultra-Processed Foods Under Fire: What Consumers Need to Know

Debate Intensifies Over Impact of Processed Foods on Health

The health community is grappling with the definition and impact of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), with public health advocates pointing to their role in rising chronic diseases across the nation.

Defining the Undefined

While common culprits like chips and soda are easily identified, the category of ultra-processed foods remains broadly defined. Many foods with beneficial nutrient profiles, such as tofu, certain canned fruits and vegetables, protein bars, and nut milks, also fall under this umbrella, leading to confusion.

“These are all quite processed and some of them can be classified as ultra-processed foods but because of their nutrient profiles, they might be better for us and not associated with the worst health outcomes,” explained **Michele Polacsek**, professor of public health at the University of New England.

Widespread Consumption, Growing Concern

With UPFs accounting for over 70% of American calorie intake, efforts to regulate or even definitively label them face significant challenges. **Marion Nestle**, a nutrition expert and emeritus professor at New York University, noted the difficulty in targeting these foods due to their pervasive presence in the American diet.

UPFs are characterized by manufactured ingredients and additives designed to enhance taste, appearance, and shelf life. Research increasingly links these foods to a range of health issues, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, and mental health disorders, as highlighted in a 2024 study published in the British Medical Journal.

Government Action and Research Gaps

In response to growing concerns, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has initiated a process to gather data for an official definition of ultra-processed foods. However, experts like **Polacsek** emphasize that more research is needed to pinpoint specific ingredients or processing methods responsible for negative health outcomes.

“We don’t have all the evidence we need. We need a lot more research on this.”

—Michele Polacsek, Professor of Public Health

Creating policy without sufficient data could be a misstep, **Polacsek** cautioned, advocating for concurrent funding for research into UPFs’ public health and industry impacts.

Navigating a Processed Food Landscape

In the interim, **Nestle** advises a reduction in UPF consumption while acknowledging that some may still contribute to a balanced diet. A 2023 study by researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture demonstrated that a diet comprising 91% UPFs could be structured for health, though it noted potential deficiencies in sodium and whole grains.

The core principle of healthy eating, according to **Nestle**, remains dietary variety. Consuming a wide range of minimally processed foods is key to maintaining good health.

Recent analysis from the New England Journal of Medicine found that individuals with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods had a 16% increased risk of mortality from all causes compared to those with the lowest intake.

“The basic principle of healthy eating is variety. If you eat a lot of different kinds of food, and most of them are minimally processed, you’re doing fine,” **Nestle** concluded. “Food is one of life’s greatest pleasures, it’s really important to enjoy what you eat.”

Why HFCS is More affordable Than Sugar

Tariffs on sugar imports have contributed to its higher price in the U.S. as the nation’s early years, with barriers in place almost from its founding, as noted by the Cato Institute. As the 1981 Farm Bill, the U.S. has implemented a system that increases duties on sugar once a specific import threshold is met. Additionally, domestic production controls limit sugar supplies, thereby maintaining higher prices.

Furthermore, HFCS benefits from billions of dollars in federal subsidies for corn farmers. These subsidies, which include loans, direct payments, insurance premium subsidies, and surplus crop purchases, reduce the costs for farmers and consequently lower the price of the corn they cultivate.

Safety of Sugar Replacements in Diet Sodas

While reducing added sugar intake has proven benefits,the use of artificial sweeteners as replacements presents its own complexities.

Coca-cola Zero Sugar, launched in 2017, incorporates both the artificial sweetener aspartame and the natural sweetener stevia. However, research has suggested a potential link between aspartame and cancer. In 2023, a World Health Organization committee classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

This classification does not confirm that diet soda causes cancer, but the scientific committee indicated a possible association between aspartame and liver cancer, recommending further study. The U.S. Food and Drug Management (FDA) has contested the WHO panel’s findings, citing “notable shortcomings” in the research supporting the conclusion. FDA officials highlighted that aspartame is among the most extensively studied food additives and stated that “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns” when it is used within approved parameters.

Stevia, a sweetener derived from plants, is considered “a safe choice” by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy organization.

Marion Nestle

RFK Jr. is waging a war against ultra-processed foods. What does it mean for your diet?