Why Ultra-Processed Foods Must Be in Dietary Guidelines
As concerns about ultra-processed foods (UPF) spread, some health experts and dietitians allied with Big Food are now suggesting that a focus on ultra-processing unfairly demonizes some healthy food products, distracts consumers from more important food attributes, and fails to account for the food choices available to low-income consumers. The reality could not be further from the truth.
Common industry talking points argue that UPF are not a useful way of determining whether a food is healthy. However, many dietitians and nutrition experts, myself included, strongly disagree with this perspective. UPF are an excellent categorization tool that resonates deeply with my clients in nutrition counseling and when providing nutrition education to the public.
Although I agree with the author that we should “focus on reducing sugary beverages, fast food, and junk food, while increasing fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts,” we can do this while simultaneously educating consumers to decrease UPF given their health concerns. Alarming statistics show that ultra-processed foods dominate the American diet, accounting for 67.0% of caloric intake among youth aged 2-19 and 57.0% among adults, with both groups showing significant increases over the past two decades. These data underscore the urgent need to address our dietary patterns and identify ultra-processed foods on packaging.
Some industry talking points emphasize that the UPF category is broad, encompassing both unhealthy foods (like chips and soda) and those that may be neutral or even beneficial (such as whole-grain bread and yogurt). To say that many of these foods are neutral or beneficial is to ignore that many of the additives included in these foods are not really food. Although they are technically edible, many have not been adequately tested. In addition, this perspective ignores that often similar, less-processed foods are just as convenient.
Promoting whole foods and minimally processed choices—while highlighting the risks of UPF—isn’t fear-mongering; it’s about empowering people to make informed decisions that support long-term health. The argument to dismiss the relevance of UPF as a useful label fails to acknowledge the depth of research that links these foods to serious health outcomes. As a registered dietitian who has spent years counseling families, providing workshops across all income brackets, developing educational tools, and spearheading campaigns on whole food consumption, I find it concerning to read dismissive narratives that often come from individuals with industry ties.
Of course, we should prioritize a diet rich in minimally processed foods. However, our current food environment poses significant challenges because of limited transparency from food manufacturers and loopholes in getting “food” ingredients passed as GRAS (generally recognized as safe). It’s also difficult to identify UPF unless you’re well-versed in identifying ingredients. For instance, consider viewing two different granola bar brands; both have “natural” and “made with whole grain” on their front packaging. One has all real food ingredients, like oats, nuts, raisins, and sugar; another brand has oats, nuts, raisins, inverted sugar, natural flavors, soy lecithin, and guar gum. Unless consumers pick up each box and carefully read through and compare the ingredients, they won’t know which one is UPF. Plus, sometimes foods can have an ingredient that sounds natural, like DATEM, which is actually diacetyl tartaric acid ester of mono- and diglycerides.
1. Affordability of Non-UPF
Contrary to some claims, focusing on UPF is neither elitist nor impractical—it’s a necessity for public health. Claiming otherwise is an industry diversion tactic. There are countless affordable, minimally processed alternatives available to many consumers. For example, bagged grains or beans, canned beans without added ultra-processed ingredients, or plain yogurt are just as accessible as their ultra-processed counterparts, and the same goes for frozen fruits and vegetables.
While the majority of Americans have access to minimally processed foods, identifying which packaged foods are ultra-processed can be challenging. Additionally, finding the limited non-UPF packaged food options amidst the vast landscape of UPF products can be difficult. Encouraging families to cook simple, minimally processed meals at home— such as whole grain pasta with tomato sauce made from real ingredients—can also foster better long-term eating habits. Of course, affordability and lack of access to healthy foods (e.g., food deserts and food swamps) are serious issues that must be addressed, especially in low-income and underserved communities. Expanding access to a variety of healthy foods, alongside policy changes and public health initiatives that promote education on reducing ultra-processed options, can be effective strategies for fostering healthier communities. Empowering individuals with the knowledge and tools to make healthier choices can significantly improve dietary patterns.
In addition, our current agricultural subsidy system prioritizes commodity crops. The government subsidizes corn, wheat, and soy, allowing companies to obtain these ingredients at a discount—many of which end up in ultra-processed foods (UPF). Instead of subsidizing these crops, wouldn't it make more sense to allocate our tax dollars toward fruits and vegetables? This shift could benefit both consumers and farmers, supporting better health outcomes, consumer affordability, and environmental sustainability of our food system.
2. Empowering Consumers
As a dietitian, when counseling, I aim to empower consumers to prioritize purchasing foods closer to their natural state. In addition, I encourage decreasing UPF when possible but not avoiding them completely. It’s about equipping people with the knowledge to make wiser choices to decrease UPF. Why not guide them toward a NOVA group 3 (processed) peanut butter instead of a NOVA group 4 (UPF) option? To see a description of Nova, view Best practices for applying the Nova food classification system. Processed peanut butter may include peanuts and salt, whereas ultra-processed peanut butter may include peanuts, mono-di glycerides, and hydrogenated oils.
Additionally, we need greater transparency from food manufacturers. For example, when counseling online, a client often pulls up a food product to ask about it. While the nutrition facts are readily available, finding the complete ingredient list online is often surprisingly difficult for common products like crackers, yogurt, or salad dressings.
Some experts argue that discussing concerns about ultra-processed foods (UPF) could confuse or mislead consumers. However, based on my experience in counseling and conducting workshops, people are fully capable of understanding and balancing multiple ideas—such as increasing whole foods, reducing fast food, and being mindful of the impact of UPF on health.
This approach to education doesn’t just apply to adults—it’s just as vital, if not more so, for children. By teaching kids about nutrition early on, we can instill the same principles of informed decision-making and balance, empowering them to develop healthy habits from a young age. Early nutrition education is especially critical. I’ve seen how engaging kids with fun, hands-on nutrition lessons and food tastings empowers them to make better choices and lays the groundwork for lifelong healthy habits. At the same time, these activities can also be used to teach them to minimize ultra-processed foods and identify synthetic 'edible' substances.
The health crisis in America is multifaceted, and while increasing fruit and vegetables and other whole foods and decreasing ultra-processed and low-quality fast food is critical, we cannot overlook the significant role that UPF play in driving overeating, obesity, and chronic disease. To dismiss concerns about UPF as a distraction is to do a disservice to public health. Instead, we need to keep the conversation going, support more independent research, and advocate for a food environment that prioritizes whole-food ingredients over industrial formulations while promoting greater transparency in the food industry, especially in how foods are processed and the origin of additives.
3. Ultra-Processed Foods Matter
Many articles that criticize the health concerns tied to UPF oversimplify the research. The NOVA classification system, widely used in peer-reviewed studies, differentiates UPF not just by processing but by the presence of additives designed to extend shelf life, enhance flavor, and improve texture—making them hyper-palatable and easy to overconsume. Additives such as emulsifiers, artificial flavoring, and other synthetic substances—many of which lack rigorous, long-term safety testing—set UPF apart from less processed foods. While some of these substances may not be inherently harmful in isolation, we do not know, as little research has been done on many of them. In addition, their cumulative and pervasive presence in modern diets raises significant concerns.
4. A Narrow Focus on Micronutrient Needs to Absolve UPF Risks
A narrow focus on micronutrient adequacy and adherence to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines often ignores the broader health impacts of UPF. Some proponents of UPF argue that you can meet all your micronutrient needs on a strictly UPF diet, ignoring the many components that go into good nutrition—from fiber and water content to phytonutrient intake, mindful eating, and connecting with food through cooking. Good nutrition is an ecosystem that includes more than just micro and macronutrient composition. Just because a food is whole grain or fortified doesn't negate the additives or processing that could make the food harmful or potentially reduce the bioavailability of its nutrients.
When comparing two UPF foods, one food can contain beneficial nutrients and, for example, be lower in saturated fat than another UPF. Therefore, it could be perceived as more nutritious but still contain harmful components. Instead of debating which UPF is better or more nutritious, why not remove both from the equation? This isn’t always possible, but when it is, it should be an important part of the discussion, education, or intervention.
For example, while studies may highlight the benefits of ultra-processed yogurt in lowering colon cancer risk and improving bone health, excellent non-UPF options are available that provide even greater customization and health benefits for those looking to decrease ultra-processed yogurt, brands like Chobani, Fage, Wallaby, or Open Nature offer plain, non-UPF yogurts.
Non-UPF yogurt serves as a versatile base, and many of my clients enjoy customizing it with their favorite fruits, nuts, seeds, cocoa powder, cinnamon, or a drizzle of honey to personalize sweetness and overall deliciousness while avoiding unnecessary additives.
I’m not saying to avoid all UPF yogurt, but first, let’s highlight better choices and make it easier for consumers to understand and identify what’s in their food. Empowering people to make mindful decisions to lower UPF that also prioritize simplicity and health while enjoying flavorful, real foods closer to nature is key.
There is accumulating evidence of a role for UPF in increasing the risk of disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), functional gastrointestinal disorders, and several intestinal cancers. Additives like emulsifiers, stabilizers, and artificial sweeteners may negatively impact gut health, promote inflammation, disrupt mental health, and alter satiety signals. Furthermore, UPF consumption has been linked to chronic diseases such as metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular issues. Research consistently shows that whole, minimally processed foods are associated with the best long-term health outcomes.
It’s also crucial to scrutinize those who dismiss UPF regulation, particularly if they have ties to Big Food interests. A more nuanced approach is needed to fully understand the risks associated with UPF and to protect public health. Countries such as Belgium, France, Portugal, Colombia, Spain, Ecuador, Israel (expanded guidelines mention UPF), Maldives, Peru, Uruguay, and Mexico already recognize the harmful effects of ultra-processed foods (UPF) or advocate for prioritizing fresh, unprocessed, or minimally processed foods over highly processed options. In addition to recommending the avoidance of ultra-processed foods, Brazil also advises against their consumption by children under 2 years of age. These nations are taking action through measures like updated dietary guidelines or taxation. This highlights the urgent need for greater awareness and action in the United States.
5. Beyond Salt, Sugar, and Fat
While salt, sugar, and fat are important markers of unhealthy foods, Kevin Hall’s NIH study highlighted a critical finding: even when diets were matched for these nutrients, participants consuming UPF ate more and gained weight. This suggests that it’s not just the nutrient profile that matters but also the very nature of how UPF interact with our satiety mechanisms and drive overconsumption. Ignoring this distinction undermines public understanding of why UPF pose a unique problem. Moreover, UPF often lack the dietary fiber, water content, and phytonutrients present in whole foods that help promote satiety and prevent overeating. Encouraging people to eat more whole fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains—while eating fewer highly processed products laden with refined ingredients—is a fundamental part of improving public health.
6. UPF and Additives: Poor or Absent Research of Additives
Pieces dismissing UPF ignore concerns about additives like emulsifiers, food coloring, and artificial sweeteners. Emerging research shows these substances may negatively impact gut health and metabolic function. For example, studies on emulsifiers suggest they may alter the gut microbiome, potentially leading to inflammation and increased risk of metabolic diseases.
Additives like artificial colors have been linked to behavioral changes in children. Over 15 years ago, I wrote about the harms of red food dye, yet it has taken this long to see it banned. What about the other dyes that also pose known risks? Even the questionable safety of artificial colors highlights the need for caution, especially when children consume many of these ingredients daily. Yet, many of these additives are deemed “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) without robust, independent, long-term research.
Labeling concerns about these substances as "frightening to consumers or alarmist" is dismissive of legitimate scientific inquiry. As a dietitian with over 20 years of experience, I’ve witnessed a sharp rise in type 2 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and other conditions that are also linked to UPF consumption. These trends underscore the urgency of addressing this issue rather than minimizing or dismissing the label UPF.
7. Environmental and Ethical Considerations
The argument that some UPF, like many soy milks or plant-based alternatives, are necessary for environmental reasons is a false dichotomy. Promoting minimally processed plant-based foods and reducing reliance on UPF are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, many plant-based alternatives can be produced without resorting to ultra-processing, preserving both their nutritional integrity and environmental benefits.
For instance, my favorite soy milk contains only soybeans and water, making it a NOVA group 3 food (processed), not ultra-processed (UPF), with soybeans, water, guar gum, and natural flavor. The notion that reducing UPF means eliminating environmentally friendly options is misleading. We can and should strive for plant-based options that are minimally processed and nutritious, such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds—plus, these options add vibrant flavors and culinary appeal to our meals.
In addition, the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods extends beyond the resources required for production, such as the demand for agricultural commodities and factory energy use. It also includes the significant effects of packaging and distribution.
8. Public Health Requires Transparency
No one is arguing that we should demonize all processed foods. We are advocating for transparency about what goes into our food, how it is processed, and its potential impact on our health. The food environment has shifted dramatically over the past few decades, with synthetic ingredients and additives becoming pervasive in everyday diets.
To suggest that we should only focus on obviously highly processed food like donuts and fast food while ignoring the proliferation of UPF in other categories is to ignore the complexity of today’s food landscape. A peanut butter, frozen dinner, or frozen vegetable could be Nova group 3 (processed) or Nova group 4 (ultra-processed) based on its ingredients: we can just state it’s just “junk food” and call it a day. Minimally processed options, such as grains, pasta, and canned foods without unnecessary additives, should be the norm, not the exception.
9. The Real Agenda: Shifting the Narrative
When health experts argue against the relevance of UPF, it's crucial to examine whether food industry interests influence their perspectives. The tobacco industry used similar tactics to downplay the risks of smoking for decades, shifting the conversation to personal responsibility instead of addressing product safety. Today, we see too many food companies employing the same strategy—arguing that UPF aren’t the problem; it’s just that people are eating too much fast food. It's far from a free society when we can't figure out how our food is made or understand what the additives do in our bodies.
This narrative conveniently absolves manufacturers of their role in creating hyper-palatable, addictive products or foods that contain poorly tested additives that have taken over our food supply. A clear example of this shift is in products like balsamic vinegar. Ten years ago, it was easy to find varieties without additives. Today, glucose syrup or emulsifiers are commonly added to what was previously a healthy staple in my diet. Is the addition of emulsifiers and glucose syrup in products like balsamic vinegar truly necessary, or is it just a cost-cutting measure that compromises food quality?
Emerging research on emulsifiers suggests they may negatively affect the microbiome, intestinal permeability, and inflammation. Given the choice between hummus with or without emulsifiers, I’ll always choose the one without when I can. It’s becoming harder to avoid additives entirely, and their cumulative impact on health is concerning. This isn’t about scaring consumers—it’s about empowering them to make more informed choices. In a capitalist society, we deserve transparency and the ability to choose.
10. Future Directions to Health Experts: UPF Discussion Points for Consumers
While it’s good to acknowledge that some UPF, like a ultra-processed yogurt, may still have health benefits, always lead with the healthiest non-UPF option. If not, it’s worth reflecting on why you’re not starting there. For example, have you tried plain Greek yogurt topped with unsweetened cocoa powder, cinnamon, nuts, seeds, and a bit of frozen fruit briefly warmed in the microwave? It’s a simple, less processed, and natural alternative full of appealing textures, colors, and culinary interests. It also helps you decrease your intake of gums and additives that are over-prevalent in our food system.
When educating consumers, emphasize choosing the less processed option when faced with two equally convenient foods. For example, Goya’s black beans, which include water and salt without additives, are a better choice than their kidney beans, which contain calcium chloride and disodium ETA, making them UPF. Similarly, guide clients to make small changes within their existing diet. If someone frequently eats peanut butter, suggest they switch to a natural option like Smucker’s Natural PB instead of Skippy, which contains mono- and diglycerides. Many discounted store brands can be non-UPF as well.
I remember my mom making the switch to Crazy Richard’s peanut butter during my childhood. It was a formative experience that helped foster my love of natural foods. On a similar note, I recall flushing wheat bread down the toilet out of resistance, but I was happily eating whole grain within three days! These changes may not be feasible for all foods due to cost or convenience, but start with non-UPF. The cumulative impact of reducing additives is significant and deserves evaluation, rather than treating our children as test subjects for many of these edible substances.
We don't yet know a safe percentage of UPF consumption, so it's not helpful to suggest an arbitrary limit, such as 20%. However, we know minimizing UPF is associated with better health outcomes. With this in mind, encourage clients to screen their food choices by first identifying whether similar options are UPF or non-UPF. This approach serves as a first line of screening. When it’s impossible to avoid UPF entirely, emphasize that reducing overall intake helps mitigate health risks. All said, as a society, we consume far too much UPF, and meaningful reductions are urgently needed. Manufacturers need to provide greater transparency about their ingredients, starting with making them easy to find on their websites.
Melissa Halas, MA, RDN, CDE, is a dietitian who provides nutrition counseling and presentations nationwide through SuperKidsNutrition and MelissasHealthyLiving. Frustrated by how ultra-processed foods are often communicated to the public, she founded The Non-UPF Program with a panel of UPF experts. This newly established nonprofit is dedicated to helping consumers reduce their intake of ultra-processed foods and replace them with healthier alternatives.
