A group of prominent researchers focusing on ultra-processed foods has called for significant policy changes to address public health concerns, as highlighted in a special edition of the American Journal of Public Health, released on June 3, 2026. Marion Nestle, a scholar in food politics, emphasized the need for urgent action by policymakers during a press call.
Read More
Recent polling of 2,000 U.S. adults indicated broad bipartisan agreement on the health risks posed by ultra-processed foods, with many respondents identifying them as addictive and linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The survey revealed that majorities across political affiliations support government initiatives such as testing food additives for safety, banning artificial dyes, requiring warning labels, and mandating reductions in sugar and salt.
Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition epidemiologist at UNC Gillings School of Public Health, noted that despite the public's unified stance, the federal government has not taken adequate action. She referenced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s commitment to defining ultra-processed foods through the Food and Drug Administration, stating that a precise definition is critical for effective regulation.
Nestle critiqued Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative as being more about personal feelings than scientific evidence. She remarked that while the MAHA movement has made strides in addressing certain harmful additives, the government’s new dietary guidelines disproportionately place responsibility on individuals rather than regulating the food industry effectively.
The special issue features research detailing how Philip Morris adapted its marketing strategies from cigarettes to produce products like Lunchables, and it highlights a potential link between ultra-processed food consumption and dementia in older adults.
In an editorial, Kelly Brownell from Duke University and Jennifer Pomeranz from New York University suggested that legal actions initiated by state and local attorneys general could be pivotal in challenging the food industry. Brownell warned that industry attempts to impose preemption laws could hinder local efforts to regulate ultra-processed foods further.
Researchers also proposed various policies to improve access to fruits and vegetables, suggesting that resources redirected from disallowing soda purchases with food benefits could support local farmers.
While some experts advocated for the redirection of corn subsidies to fruit production, they uniformly agreed that education alone is insufficient to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and related health issues.
Nestle succinctly stated the challenge: "These are among the most profitable products in the supermarket; the system is rigged. If you go into a supermarket wanting to eat healthfully, you’re fighting the entire system on your own."
STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies.