Do you support or oppose government actions aimed at reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods (such as labeling requirements, school meal standards, or public health campaigns)?

Background

Ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, have become a central focus of American food policy debates. Classified under the NOVA system developed by Brazilian researchers, UPFs are industrial formulations containing additives and ingredients rarely found in home kitchens, such as emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, and colorants. According to the Congressional Research Service, an estimated 50 to 70 percent of total U.S. dietary energy comes from UPFs, and the FDA estimates that children get over 60 percent of their calories from such foods. In January 2026, the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended for the first time that Americans avoid highly processed foods. The FDA and USDA are jointly working to establish a federal definition of UPFs, having received more than 5,000 public comments in response to a 2025 request for information. At the state level, California signed a first-in-the-nation law phasing out the most concerning UPFs from school meals, and in 2025, fifteen states introduced bills aimed at defining or restricting ultra-processed foods, according to the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

Supporters of government action point to a growing body of research linking high UPF consumption to serious health risks. A 2024 review cited by Stanford Medicine found that diets high in UPFs increase the risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 50 percent, and a major NIH-funded study found that participants with the highest UPF intake showed a 17 percent greater cardiovascular disease risk. The American Heart Association has noted that most UPFs are characterized by poor nutritional quality, contributing to excessive calories while being high in saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium. However, the AHA also cautioned that not all UPFs have poor nutritional value, and some can be part of a healthy dietary pattern. Opponents of regulation, including major food industry trade groups, argue that the UPF category remains too imprecise for effective regulation, that listed ingredients have been used safely for decades, and that a patchwork of state rules could burden interstate commerce and raise compliance costs. Some also warn that restricting affordable processed foods could worsen food insecurity for lower-income households.

The stakes are significant. Diet-related chronic diseases, including heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers, remain leading causes of death in the United States. According to the American College of Cardiology, underresourced communities are disproportionately exposed to UPF-heavy diets due to the affordability and accessibility of these products. Policy outcomes could range from front-of-package warning labels and updated school meal standards to broader restrictions on marketing and food additives. Whether federal regulators ultimately adopt a formal UPF definition may shape the trajectory of food regulation for years to come, affecting consumers, food manufacturers, schools, and public health budgets alike.