Americans are trying to eat less ultra-processed food, and lawmakers and public figures are responding — calling out heavily processed products, restricting some from school meals, and pressing regulators for a formal definition. That pressure reflects concern that the modern U.S. diet, dominated by packaged and convenience items, contributes to chronic disease. Yet experts remain split on how to define “ultra-processed,” and that disagreement complicates policy and public guidance.
Where the term came from
The phrase “ultra-processed food” originates with Brazilian researchers who created the NOVA classification to sort foods by how much they have been altered. At one end are unprocessed or minimally processed items — fresh fruit, plain frozen vegetables, and milk. At the other are manufactured products made from industrial ingredients, often with additives like colorings, emulsifiers, flavorings, and preservatives. Typical examples labeled ultra-processed include many soft drinks, packaged cookies and cakes, processed deli meats, and ready-to-heat frozen entrees.
What studies show
A large body of research links high consumption of ultra-processed foods with worse health outcomes. Nearly a hundred observational studies and several randomized trials have found associations between heavy intake and higher rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and even depression. Experimental and mechanistic work suggests ultra-processed items may be absorbed differently, trigger fast blood-sugar spikes, promote overeating, and alter the gut microbiome. Some studies also indicate people extract more calories from ultra-processed foods than from comparable high-fiber whole foods.
But the category is not uniform
Critics of treating all ultra-processed foods the same point out that the label covers a wide range. Some products classified as ultra-processed can still offer nutritional value or practical benefits: whole-grain packaged breads, fortified plant-based milks, and certain yogurts have been linked in studies with lower risk of disease. Convenience items such as jarred tomato sauce can save time and reduce food waste. Because the category includes both clearly unhealthy and potentially helpful products, many nutrition experts caution against blanket bans or blanket stigmatization.
Two competing policy perspectives
One camp favors focusing policy on nutrients and food quality rather than on processing per se. That approach targets known harms — excess added sugar, refined starches, sodium, and unhealthy fats — and aims to avoid penalizing nutritious processed options. Food science groups often push for definitions tied to nutritional profiles.
The opposing view holds that processing itself matters independently of nutrient content. Proponents argue that intensive physical and chemical changes — when foods are broken down and reconstituted with industrial ingredients — can change how the body digests, absorbs, and responds to them. From this perspective, processing can affect appetite regulation, metabolism, and the microbiome in ways not captured by nutrient labels.
What this means for consumers and policy
The expert split leaves shoppers with mixed messages. Ultra-processed foods make up a large share of supermarket offerings and are often the most affordable and accessible options. Many analysts say effective policy should make healthier whole-food choices easier and cheaper to obtain.
Practical advice from nutritionists: favor whole foods when you can, choose whole-grain packaged breads and minimally sugared yogurts, cut back on sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, limit processed meats, and read ingredient lists — shorter lists without unfamiliar emulsifiers or industrial additives are preferable. Frozen fruit, vegetables, and canned or dried beans are affordable, nutritious choices.
The debate about how to define ultra-processed foods for regulation and guidance continues. Some experts urge prioritizing nutrients and overall food quality; others insist on including processing characteristics because of potential biological effects. Many observers believe clearer federal guidance could help reconcile these views and shape policies that reduce harm while improving access to healthier foods.