By Sarah Campise Hallier
EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Ultra-processed foods are no longer a niche category—they are the foundation of the American diet. Formulated from refined components and engineered for palatability, these products are designed to encourage repeat consumption. Emerging research links high intake to metabolic, neurological and developmental concerns, while regulatory efforts to address additives and packaging chemicals continue to evolve. Looking beyond labels to how these foods are produced and promoted reveals a system that extends far beyond individual choice.
Today’s grocery store center aisles would be unrecognizable to your great-grandparents. Most options come in bright cardboard boxes that promise protein-packed meals but often contain long lists of ingredients that are difficult to pronounce, like carboxymethylcellulose and disodium guanylate. These “food products” are now ubiquitous across the food environment, heavily marketed and enormously profitable. They also fit a more precise category: ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
UPFs are not simply “bad versions” of familiar meals. They are mixtures of cheap or refined starches, added sugars, seed oils (industrial vegetable oils extracted from crops such as canola, corn, cottonseed, grapeseed, soybean, sunflower, rice bran and peanut) and protein isolates combined with emulsifiers, thickeners and flavorings to mimic the experience of real food. They are portable and marketed as nourishing, yet these products are also part of a global industry built around shelf stability, low production costs and repeat purchasing. Convenience is part of the story, alongside strong economic incentives.
Today, UPFs supply the majority of calories in the American diet. A growing body of research links high consumption to health conditions that modern medicine struggles to manage. Studies associate greater intake of UPFs with higher rates of autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammation, mental health disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. Taking control of your health begins with understanding how UPFs came to dominate the grocery cart, your cravings and long-term well-being.
From Whole to Ultra-processed: How Foods are Classified
There are three broad types of foods you encounter on a daily basis, and understanding the differences between them can make it easier to see how the modern diet has changed. They vary not only in what they contain but also in how much they have been altered from their original form. Nutrition researchers group them by their level of processing.
Whole foods
Foods that are close to their primary state: an apple, a head of lettuce, a whole chicken, nuts. They may be washed, trimmed, chilled or otherwise prepared without being fundamentally changed. Their natural structure, including fiber and intact cell walls, is largely preserved. This form helps slow digestion, moderate blood sugar and deliver nutrients in balance with calories.
Minimally processed foods
These are whole foods altered for preservation (dried beans to extend shelf life), distribution or basic convenience (precut vegetables). Some foods in this category are also fortified or enriched with vitamins and minerals, such as milk with added vitamin D or grains enriched with B vitamins and iron. Other examples include frozen fruit, plain yogurt, butter, canned tomatoes, roasted nuts and simple sourdough bread made from flour, water, salt and yeast. Techniques like fermenting, peeling, boiling, drying, freezing and canning extend freshness and support food handling and storage without fundamentally changing their nature.
Ultra-processed foods
UPFs are not just “more processed.” They are built from fractions of real foods, like corn syrup instead of corn, isolated soy protein instead of soybeans, and maltodextrin—often derived from corn or other starches, which may be genetically modified. Because these ingredients are typically sourced from large-scale commodity crops, they may also carry residues from widely used herbicides such as glyphosate. They are reassembled with additives to create products optimized for taste, texture, and shelf life. Soda, energy drinks, packaged chips, frozen entrées with a long list of ingredients, most fast-food items, boxed breakfast cereals with added colors, and many “plant-based” or “diet” products fall into this category.
Brazil’s NOVA system has become the global standard for defining UPFs and has shaped much of the current research linking them to chronic disease. Other classification frameworks exist—including models developed by Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health and the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Europe—but NOVA is the most influential in discussions about diet quality and public health.
Until recently, these definitions mostly appeared in academic research. Now the concept is beginning to show up in public policy as well. California recently passed legislation addressing UPFs in school meals, one of the first times the term has been formally defined in U.S. law. While the terminology differs across systems, they share a central theme: the modern food supply increasingly consists of products that are far removed from their original form.
UPFs emerged from a series of historical shifts, particularly in the mid-20th century. During World War II, women entered factories in large numbers to replace men sent overseas. Long hours away from home made cooking nightly dinners difficult. Food companies responded with canned meals, instant mixes and frozen dinners that promised to feed families quickly and cheaply. These products were marketed as modern, efficient and patriotic, reinforcing the idea that a “good mother” could do it all.
By the late 1940s and into the 1950s, these “quick” meals shifted from occasional helpers to everyday staples. As supermarkets grew and suburban life expanded, food manufacturers needed products that could last longer without spoiling, travel easily and maintain a consistent taste. Shelf-stable foods met that demand. At the same time, postwar agricultural subsidies increased the production of corn, wheat and soy. These crops became the base ingredients for sweeteners, refined flours and industrial oils that are now common in many ultra-processed foods. Over time, these products became hard to escape. Heavily advertised, they became part of the schedule of normal life: school lunches, office snacks, vending machines, hospital cafeterias and sporting events. What was once a wartime workaround became the default.
From a regulatory perspective, individual additives are usually assessed in isolation and deemed safe at specific doses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that food additives must be authorized before they can be used in products on the market. In theory, that sounds protective. In practice, Americans consume mixtures of additives, emulsifiers, and even contaminants from packaging, layered on top of excess sweeteners, refined starches and highly processed industrial fats. The result is a way of eating that looks very different from the whole and minimally processed diets that sustained human health for most of history.
The FDA’s GRAS designation (”generally recognized as safe”) adds another layer of complexity by allowing substances considered safe at typical exposure levels to be added to food without formal FDA approval. Between 2000 and 2021, 756 of 766 new food chemicals added to the food supply—98.7 percent—relied on the GRAS process rather than seeking formal FDA review. This has raised scrutiny from scientists and policymakers, and federal officials have begun assessing whether the current self-affirmation process should be strengthened or reformed.
Why UPFs Hook You: Beyond “Willpower”
These foods aren’t just handy. Manufacturers spend significant time and resources engineering them to be hard to resist, often by targeting what food scientists call the “bliss point”—an ideal blend of sugar, fat and salt that makes the taste intensely satisfying. Many are puffed, aerated or structurally manipulated so they break down quickly in your mouth. Instead of requiring much chewing, they dissolve rapidly and create a light, crisp or creamy texture that feels pleasurable from the first bite. That combination stimulates dopamine, the brain’s reward chemical, making them especially difficult to put down.
In many cases, UPFs are essentially predigested before you even eat them. Refined flours are ground into very fine particles, fats are blended and stabilized, and proteins are altered during manufacturing. Because much of the work has already been done, your body absorbs the calories almost immediately. That can lead to sharper spikes in blood sugar and insulin compared with the same number of calories from whole foods, leaving you hungry again sooner and increasing the likelihood of overeating. Researchers in The Milbank Quarterly have drawn parallels between the tobacco industry and UPF manufacturers, stating:
“A growing body of evidence links UPFs to the global rise in diet-related diseases, and many individuals report difficulty moderating their intake, often describing behaviors consistent with addiction.”
In a recent episode of 60 Minutes, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler said ultra-processed foods pose a public health threat “as large, if not larger” than tobacco. Repeated exposure can eventually alter how the brain responds to flavor. Subtle tastes in unrefined foods may feel less satisfying, while intensely sweet, salty or artificially flavored products become more desirable. Ingredients such as high-fructose sweeteners—including agave, which is high in fructose despite its natural reputation—along with “natural flavors” and heavily engineered seasoning blends designed to intensify sensory appeal train the palate to expect these extreme tastes as normal. This is particularly concerning for children, who are still developing their food preferences and are especially susceptible to targeted marketing.
Marketing reinforces the cycle by pairing these foods with reward, nostalgia and social connection: chips and soda at game night, cake and ice cream at celebrations, and fast food as an everyday treat. At the policy level, companies spend far more promoting ultra-processed foods than public health agencies spend encouraging whole food consumption. This imbalance is especially pronounced in low-income communities and among younger audiences. Together, these forces create an environment in which food choices are more constrained than they appear. You are not simply deciding between an apple and a pack of gummies. The cheapest and most heavily promoted options are often designed to keep you coming back, while emotional associations with food can blur the line between habit and true hunger.
From Gut to Brain: The Wider Health Toll of UPFs
Diets high in UPFs are linked not only to weight gain, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, but also to broader health issues. Many UPFs are rich in refined carbohydrates and low in fiber, which can disrupt the gut microbiome, weaken the intestinal barrier and promote chronic inflammation. This can aggravate autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and psoriasis, particularly in those with genetic or environmental susceptibility.
A large international study published in The British Medical Journal followed more than 116,000 adults across 21 countries and found that people who consumed five or more servings of UPFs per day had about an 82 percent greater risk of developing IBD compared with those who ate less than one serving per day. Even moderate consumption of one to four servings per day was associated with a 67 percent higher risk.
Certain additives used in UPFs may influence metabolism. For example, L-cysteine has been studied for its role in how sulfur-containing amino acids affect weight regulation, while some emulsifiers—such as carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate 80 have been linked in research to changes in gut microbiota and metabolic function. These effects are complex and depend on overall diet and context, but added L-cysteine in processed foods may behave differently from the naturally occurring amino acids found in foods such as eggs, meat, or legumes. As Dr. Robert Malone notes, “Most commercial bread available in North America is an ultra-processed food,” and many varieties contain added L-cysteine as a dough conditioner and preservative.
Mental health is now a growing focus in research on ultra-processed foods. Diets high in UPFs are linked to increased rates of depression and anxiety. After eating a large amount of cookies or a big plate of pasta, blood sugar can rise rapidly before crashing, leaving you feeling tired, irritable, unfocused or craving more carbohydrates. These responses may reflect multiple overlapping biological processes, including low-grade inflammation, disruption of the gut-brain axis and repeated blood sugar fluctuations that place ongoing strain on the body’s stress response. Emerging research also suggests that highly processed diets may affect neurotransmitter balance and signaling, as well as the production of compounds by gut microbes that communicate with the brain, influencing mood, cognition and stress resilience over time.
A growing body of research suggests the effects of ultra-processed foods may begin even before birth. Higher intake during pregnancy has been associated with increased risk of preterm birth and hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia. In one study, women who experienced adverse outcomes, including small-for-gestational-age infants or neonatal death, consumed more calories from UPFs daily than women without these complications. These early exposures may set health trajectories from the start and are often followed by continued high intake in childhood. This is especially concerning given that children today get more than 60 percent of their calories from UPFs.
There is also growing concern about packaging—many UPFs are wrapped in plastics that contain chemicals like bisphenols and phthalates, which can migrate into food, especially when heated or stored for long periods. These substances are known endocrine disruptors that may interfere with fertility, thyroid function and normal development over time. Because cardiovascular, metabolic and brain health are tightly connected, diets dominated by ultra-processed foods increase the long-term risk of dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.
Western medicine, Big Food, and the “pill for every ill” mindset
Modern medicine is highly effective at handling acute emergencies. Urgent care centers and hospital emergency departments save lives through surgery, treat serious infections, and stabilize patients after trauma. But in many clinical settings, there is a disconnect between recommendations for improving health and the environments in which care is delivered. Hospital meals are a prime example. Serving refined flour products, sugary gelatin, sweetened cereals, processed meats, and artificially-sweetened beverages to patients recovering from illness or procedures does not align with the goal of restoring health—it reflects a system that treats disease without fully addressing its drivers.
Meanwhile, the healthcare system spends billions treating problems linked to ultra-processed diets—autoimmune disease, depression, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Medications can be lifesaving, but they rarely address the underlying inflammation and metabolic dysfunction perpetuating these conditions. At a policy level, food and drug companies are regulated differently, but their incentives often overlap. Food companies profit from repeat purchases, while drug companies profit from chronic disease. Neither system is designed to reduce reliance on UPFs. The result is a culture where heavily processed eating, chronic illness and lifelong medication are normalized, often framed as matters of personal choice.
You likely aren’t eating chips, soda or packaged frozen dinners to sabotage your health. Busy schedules, financial pressures, caregiving responsibilities and work demands can make cooking from scratch feel overwhelming—and for many families, that’s not a failure of willpower or priorities. It’s the reality of a food system that has made ultra-processed options the path of least resistance. When a bag of chips costs less than a bunch of broccoli, and a drive-through is open at 10pm when the kitchen is closed, the deck is stacked. UPFs do meet a real need by offering practical solutions:
- Affordable: Lower cost per calorie, helping stretch a tight budget
- Predictable: Useful for children with selective eating habits or sensory sensitivities
- Convenient: Minimal prep time and equipment required
- Social: Common at gatherings, where opting out can feel isolating
These factors, alongside engineered flavors, make “just choosing better” far more complex than it sounds.
Changing Course in a System That Isn’t Built for It
Reducing UPF dominance requires action on multiple levels: policy, healthcare, community and home. These changes take effort, but small, consistent steps can lead to meaningful improvements in physical and mental health. At the policy level, the most impactful changes would include labeling foods by processing level, removing subsidies that make refined ingredients cheaper than whole foods, restricting marketing of UPFs to children, and setting nutritional standards for schools, hospitals and government facilities. Policymakers have already proposed labeling systems modeled after the USDA Organic seal to help consumers identify UPFs more easily.
In healthcare, meaningful progress would require integrating dietary assessment into routine care, training clinicians to evaluate food quality rather than just calories or macronutrients, and building care models that address both the physical and behavioral dimensions of UPF reliance. Expanding insurance coverage for food-based interventions in chronic disease management would also help close the gap between what the research supports and what patients can access.
Within communities, expanding access to farmers’ markets, mobile markets that bring fresh foods into underserved areas, and community-supported agriculture programs can help level a playing field that currently favors convenience over quality. Investment in community kitchens, cooking programs and workplace policies that allow time for real meals would further reduce the structural pressure to rely on processed options.
At home, change doesn’t have to happen all at once. Start with one meal at a time. Use minimally processed shortcuts such as frozen vegetables, canned beans or rotisserie chicken. When using packaged items, check ingredient lists and choose options with simpler, recognizable components. Save UPFs for occasional use rather than daily reliance. Cook in batches and freeze extras for future meals. And involve children in meal preparation early—kids who help cook are more likely to eat what’s made and carry those habits into adulthood. For younger children especially, repeated exposure to whole foods—even when initially rejected—helps shape taste preferences before ultra-processed flavors have a chance to crowd them out.
UPFs are the outcome of history, economic incentives and technological advances. They solved certain problems but created new ones—now visible across cardiovascular care, oncology wards, psychiatric practices and memory-care settings. You may not have to eliminate them entirely, but greater awareness, paired with deliberate day-to-day food decisions and changes in how food is produced, marketed and made available, can help shift the trajectory. The real question is not whether you should swear off chips or frozen pizza forever—it is whether products engineered for shelf life and hyperpalatability should remain the default in your daily diet.
Your great-grandparents did not have to question whether what they were eating qualified as food in the first place. As it becomes clearer how these products are designed, marketed and normalized, they are harder to view as harmless. The way forward may be simpler than it appears: choose more foods that come from soil, trees or animals, and fewer that come from factories and formulations. Real food should not be an alternative—it should be the foundation.
~
Published on June 25, 2026.
If you’ve found value in this article, please share it!
To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.
