In recent years, an idea has taken hold across the ideological spectrum: The rise in diabetes and obesity in the United States is attributable to addictive, ultra-processed foods that dominate the American diet. But many people who are enthusiastically objecting to ultra-processed foods have little (if any) understanding of what the phrase means.
Legislatures, governors, government agencies, and plaintiff attorneys are taking action against ultra-processed foods, but there is no clear definition of ultra-processed foods and there is little discussion of their benefits. Ultra-processed foods include everything from chips to nutrition supplement smoothies to breakfast cereals to chicken stock. Their proliferation has made food more accessible for lower income families, increased food shelf-life, and reduced the risk of bacteria present in food.
This has not stopped government officials from making health claims about this overly broad classification of food. In a January 2025 executive order, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared that “‘ultra-processed foods’ are known to pose a health risk to individuals.” In November 2024, then-FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and colleagues wrote in STAT that “The clear association between ultra-processed food and negative health outcomes is cause for major concern.” The following month, he told Congress that in his opinion, ultra-processed foods are “probably addictive.” Similarly, in January 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Food and Drug Administration, testified at his confirmation hearing, “something is poisoning the American people, and we know that the primary culprits are our changing food supply — the switch to highly chemical-intensive processed foods.”
Civil litigants are also filing suit against ultra-processed food manufacturers, claiming that they are addictive and cause the development of obesity, diabetes, and liver disease, among other serious chronic illnesses. Plaintiffs claim that these foods increase these health risks independently of their nutritional value. In other words, they argue that ultra-processed foods are dangerous because they are ultra-processed, and not simply because of the number of calories they contain or their salt, fat, sugar, or carbohydrate content.
But there’s a big question: What actually makes a food ultra-processed?
Ultra-processed is a category of food in the NOVA food classification system, which was created in 2009 by Carlos Monteiro, a nutritionist at the University of Sao Paolo, Brazil. In the system, food is classified into one of four groups based on the extent and purpose of processing: (1) minimally processed (e.g., fresh fruit, steaks), (2) processed culinary ingredients (e.g., sugar, butter), (3) processed foods (e.g., bacon, fresh cheese), and (4) ultra-processed foods (e.g., chips, pre-prepared meals). As Monteiro cautions, it is “not always immediately clear when some specific food products are ultra-processed or not.” But generally, ultra-processed foods are characterized by multiple ingredients, flavor or coloring enhancers, shelf stabilizers, industrial manufacturing, and/or mass production.
Given the broad definition, a significant portion of the developing world’s food supply is ultra-processed. Some researchers estimate that 73% of the U.S. food supply is ultra-processed. Other studies estimate that it comprises 67% of American children’s diets on average. Research suggests other developed countries also have high percentages of diets attributable to ultra-processed foods, including Australia, Canada, England, Japan, and Mexico. Even in Italy, which has the lowest levels of ultra-processed food intake in the European Union, research suggests it still accounts for approximately 10% of total dietary intake.
The lack of clarity on ultra-processed foods makes it difficult to understand what, if any, health risks are posed by food processing. Most available studies are focused on foods that are considered less healthy, like candy, sweetened beverages, and highly palatable snacks. But these studies tell us nothing about whether food processing in and of itself has the potential to be addictive or cause disease because, among other reasons, the broad definition captures other shelf-stable foods, as well as mass produced foods that are traditionally considered healthy, such as veggie burgers, bread, and tofu. And while new studies will attempt to quantify the health risks associated with UPF generally, even these studies must concede the limitations posed by the broad criteria that is characteristic of UPF.
As a result, some regulators are pumping the brakes on issuing new ultra-processed foods rules and guidance. For example, in its 2025 Scientific Report, the USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee declined to make recommendations on ultra-processed foods. The committee conducted a systematic review of literature and found it could not draw conclusions on potential health implications of ultra-processed foods without a better definition. The committee noted that while some studies have shown that the food is linked to adverse health outcomes, the evidence remains mixed across populations, health outcomes, and types of food. Given the lack of consensus on a definition and the developing research, the committee is conducting a systematic review to identify the relationship between dietary patterns with varying amounts of ultra-processed foods and growth, body composition, and obesity risk, as opposed to issuing recommendations. While such research may end up being useful, it should be supplemented with studies assessing the health impacts of specific ingredients, additives, and processing techniques that could provide more definitive data than studies that look at an overly inconclusive classification.
At least one state legislature is taking this approach by focusing on specific ingredients and additives, rather than the entire ultra-processed classification. In February, Utah’s legislature introduced a bill that would limit ultra-processed foods in public schools. The bill includes a narrow definition of ultra-processed, encompassing only foods and beverages with one or more of a list of dyes and additives. Massachusetts introduced a similar bill in January but defined ultra-processed foods far more generally, and as a result, will likely raise more questions than answers if enacted.
Ultra-processed food research will continue to expand over the coming years with state and federal agencies and officials focusing on the rise in obesity and diabetes, particularly in young people. As new research emerges, U.S. policymakers must balance the potential health risks with individual choice, as well as the fact that food processing is important for food safety and food security. The potential consequences of not processing food include shorter shelf life, food waste, higher food prices, the risk of biological contamination, and food supply shortages.
One way to strike the balance between health implications and food security and safety is to not get lost in a category of food that encompasses almost all mass-produced food, and focus on whether specific ingredients, additives, and food processing techniques are associated with poor health outcomes.
Chris Gismondi is of counsel in the products liability, mass tort, and class action group at DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), focusing on the intersection of consumer goods and life sciences, defending claims brought against product manufacturers, and providing broad-based risk management, litigation, and regulatory guidance and support. Megan Kinney is an associate in the products liability, mass tort, and class action group at DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), focusing on consumer protection class action claims involving the nation’s most recognizable labels for consumer goods, and providing brand-preservation risk management, litigation, and regulatory guidance. They both advise clients that may be affected by regulation of ultra-processed foods.
发表回复