“Can a grocery cart be ultra-processed without looking like ‘junk food’?”
This puzzle is at the heart of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s crusade against ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the kinds of decisions people make on busy weeknights. UPFs are commonly defined as industrial foods made with manufactured ingredients and additives, rather than actual foods. However, it seems that the category can apply to both a bag of chips and a jar of pasta sauce, which are very different kinds of foods.
The public health case for taking UPFs seriously has become more pointed. A series of papers in the journal The Lancet assessed over 100 studies that found a higher UPF diet was associated with the following outcomes: type 2 diabetes, obesity, kidney and cardiovascular diseases, and depression. “We can say now that truly ultraprocessed food represents a clear global threat to our health not only our physical health but also mental health in terms of its impacts on depression.”
said one of the authors, Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina. The series of papers also identifies a familiar set of policy tools: warning labels, restrictions on marketing to children, and standards for institutions such as schools and hospitals.
However, the narrative becomes complicated at the checkout. Nutrition scientist David Ludwig has pointed out that “By focusing on a – such an imprecise target as ultraprocessed foods, there’s a risk of demonizing perfectly healthy foods, giving a health halo to patently unhealthy foods and opening the door for industry manipulation.” This is important because the most popular classification system, NOVA, actually classifies foods based on processing level, not how “good” or “bad” a particular food is for an individual’s diet.
More recent studies have also attempted to estimate the risks. A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 18 cohort studies (totaling 1.1 million participants) found that the risk of all-cause mortality was 15% higher in the highest consumers of UPF compared with the lowest. There was also a 10% higher risk of mortality with each 10% increase in UPF consumption. While these studies cannot prove causation, the trend has been consistent enough to spark demands for more definitive guidance.
This clarity is still being built in the U.S. Federal agencies have begun to move towards a definition, which is important because “ultra-processed” has become a catch-all term that can confuse consumers and make policy harder to implement. The FDA and USDA have solicited feedback to help build a definition of ultra-processed foods, while the FDA has outlined plans to speed research through a nutrition regulatory science program with NIH.
Meanwhile, the pressing question for families is still: what changes first? For many families, the simplest cuts will be in the most obvious places: sugary drinks, highly flavored snacks, and processed meats, since they are likely to pack a lot of salt, sugar, and saturated fat with little to no protective nutrients. The more subtle decision will be to determine which processed foods are being used as staples (such as certain breads or yogurts) and which are being used as “sometimes” foods. This is the reality that exists behind the political struggle: UPFs are everywhere, it is difficult to avoid them, and the term “ultra-processed” can refer to both a convenience trap and a viable ingredient in a well-balanced meal.
