Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) are at the centre of ongoing debates in public health. From headlines to health studies, these products—linked to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, gut health issues, and even depression—are under intense scrutiny. Despite mounting evidence of their potential harms, the upcoming USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans for 2025–2030 may not directly address them. Here’s why—and what it means for public health.
The Science Behind the Guidelines
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which shapes federal nutrition standards, reviewed 41 studies on UPFs and their health impacts. These studies consistently showed associations between higher consumption of UPFs and an increased risk of chronic conditions like obesity and heart disease. However, the committee identified several limitations:
- Geographic Context: Many studies were conducted outside the U.S., raising concerns about the applicability of findings to American diets.
- Outdated Data: Some research relied on decades-old dietary records, making it difficult to accurately classify foods as ultraprocessed.
- Observational Design: Most studies were observational, lacking the causative clarity of clinical trials.
In light of these challenges, the committee ultimately prioritised evidence-backed recommendations. These included emphasising diets rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy. The longstanding advice to limit processed meats and sugary beverages—both classified as ultraprocessed—was reaffirmed. Chris Taylor from Ohio State University highlighted the stakes: “We’re not going to solve chronic disease without addressing diet.”
Missed Opportunity or Prudent Caution?
Some experts argue that by not taking a stronger stance on UPFs, the committee is missing an opportunity to guide Americans toward healthier eating habits. For instance, a landmark randomised controlled trial demonstrated how UPFs drive overeating and weight gain. Although small in scale, the study offered causal evidence of harm, yet it was excluded from deliberations. “Nutrition research is difficult and expensive,” indicated Dr. Marion Nestle, professor emerita at NYU. “Waiting for perfect evidence means delaying action when we already know UPFs are problematic.”
Others, like Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of Tufts University, have pointed out that UPFs high in refined carbohydrates, added sugars, and sodium show the strongest links to poor health outcomes. For vulnerable populations served by federal programmes like WIC and school meal services, stronger guidance could be transformative.
Yet, some researchers caution against oversimplification. Maya Vadiveloo of the University of Rhode Island stressed the importance of nuance: “Recommending a blanket avoidance of UPFs could inadvertently discourage consumption of beneficial options, like fortified cereals or yoghurts.”
Defining Ultraprocessed Foods
One major hurdle in addressing UPFs is the lack of a universally accepted definition. The NOVA classification system, often referenced in UPF research, categorises foods based on their ingredients and processing methods rather than their nutritional value. This creates inconsistencies; for example, a brownie baked at home might be deemed “unprocessed,” while a factory-made version using identical ingredients would be classified as ultraprocessed.
The NOVA system, which has influenced public health policies, recommends avoiding UPFs due to their role in diet and health. However, in developed economies where UPFs make up a significant portion of the diet, this recommendation raises concerns, particularly for vulnerable groups. Factors such as time constraints, reduced home cooking, and food preparation skills contribute to UPF consumption. A study in Norway found that those with less time were more likely to eat UPFs.
As the late Professor Mike Gibney wrote in the article in 2019, NOVA rejects food reformulation as a strategy to improve diets, in contrast to approaches in countries like the UK, where reformulation is encouraged. Definitions of UPFs have evolved over time, but without a clear definition and controlled studies, policymakers remain hesitant to impose limits on UPFs. The evidence linking UPFs to obesity remains “limited.”
The Role of Industry and Reformulation
The debate extends beyond public health to the food industry itself. Companies constantly refine UPFs to enhance taste and market appeal, often at the expense of nutritional quality. A study by Fabrizio Ferretti and Giulio Malorgio highlighted how this trend perpetuates unhealthy eating habits.
David Julian McClements suggests reformulating UPFs to improve their nutritional profile and sustainability. This aligns with calls for balanced policies that integrate health priorities with market realities. Efforts to address the excess sodium, added sugars, and saturated fats in UPFs could significantly reduce their potential harm.
The FDA’s Role in Research and Reformulation
In addition to the work done by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the FDA is playing a crucial role in addressing the challenges posed by UPFs. The agency is actively facilitating public dialogue and accelerating research on the impact of ultraprocessed foods on health. In December, the FDA will convene a workshop with NIH to identify research priorities and critical next steps in understanding the role of UPFs in chronic diseases. This marks a significant step in bridging gaps in knowledge and shaping evidence-based policies.
The FDA is also addressing the nutritional concerns associated with UPFs through its ongoing efforts to reduce sodium levels in the food supply. Following the success of Phase I of its sodium reduction programme, the FDA is moving forward with Phase II, with voluntary targets aimed at further reducing sodium in processed foods. This initiative is part of a broader effort to update nutrition labelling, ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make healthier choices.
The FDA is taking steps to further open the public dialogue on the need to accelerate high-quality research on ultraprocessed foods and help answer these important questions. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has even developed a research roadmap on ultraprocessed foods with experts from academia, government, and industry. High-quality nutrition research, adequate in size, duration, and consumption patterns, will help us develop a clearer, science-based understanding of ultraprocessed foods to inform food-related policies and regulatory decisions.
This research is also important for the food industry—some leading companies continue to aggressively market certain ultraprocessed foods that raise nutritional concerns, even as others have joined a growing movement focused on producing and distributing nutritious food.
It will take time to understand what characteristics of ultraprocessed foods make them riskier for people’s health. But for some characteristics that are disproportionately present in ultraprocessed foods—such as sodium, added sugars, and saturated fat—there is already substantial evidence of harm when these nutrients are consumed in excess. In fact, much of the potential harm from ultraprocessed foods could be offset through acting on these factors.
The FDA recognises the link between nutrition and chemical safety goals. For example, in 2015, it removed artificial trans fats from the food supply, likely preventing tens of thousands of heart disease and stroke cases. Through the Human Foods Programme, the FDA is applying its scientific expertise to evaluate food chemicals more effectively.
The FDA will continue to monitor new science and take action when necessary.
However, tackling diet-related diseases requires collaboration. Researchers, public health groups, the food industry, and the public must prioritise high-quality nutrition research on ultraprocessed foods and efforts to promote nutritious food consumption.
Looking Ahead
The committee’s final report, due in December, will influence the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines. Whether or not ultraprocessed foods are directly addressed, the evolving science is likely to shape future iterations of federal nutrition policy. Experts predict that over the next five years, research on ultraprocessed foods will expand significantly, potentially paving the way for more decisive action in 2030.
For now, the message remains clear: prioritise whole, minimally processed foods while the science on ultraprocessed products continues to unfold.
By finding a balance between scientific rigour and practical solutions, policymakers have the opportunity to influence healthier, more sustainable diets—not just for Americans, but globally. The actions taken today, including the FDA’s ongoing research and reforms, will be pivotal in shaping the future of public health.
Closing Thoughts: Navigating the UPF Debate with Clear Definitions and Innovation
In conclusion, the debate on ultra processed foods (UPFs) underscores the need for a more precise definition of what constitutes these products. Without a clear consensus on this definition, we risk unintentionally scaring consumers, making it harder for them to navigate food choices with confidence. While it is important to acknowledge the potential risks associated with UPFs, we must separate the degree of processing from the debate and instead focus on the nutritional value of food. Encouraging innovation and reformulation in the food industry should be a priority, with a focus on improving the nutritional profile of processed foods rather than vilifying processing itself. By prioritising evidence-based policies that balance both scientific rigour and practical solutions, we can guide consumers towards healthier diets without creating unnecessary fear or confusion.
Read more:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6389637/pdf/nzy077.pdf
