When Convenience Becomes a Burden: Understanding the Ultra-Processed Food Problem in the U.S.

As many researches links ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to serious health problems, concerns about them are growing around the world. Made with lots of additives and industrial ingredients, UPFs are designed for convenience, but often lack in real nutrition. The United States, where nearly 60% of the average diet comes from UPFs, is the biggest UPFs markets, making it the center of this growing health concern.

Additionally, the progress has become even more urgent with the rise of the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) message promoted by the Trump campaign. In this context, some questions come to the surface: Why are ultra-processed foods so common? What health risks do they carry? And most importantly, can current food regulations keep people safe?

UPFs' Concept and Status

"Ultra-processed foods" (UPFs) refer to industrially formulated products that contain multiple additives and minimal whole food ingredients. The concept is based on the NOVA classification system, developed by Brazilian scientist Carlos Monteiro and widely used in nutritional epidemiology to examine how the degree of food processing affects health outcomes.

NOVA Group	Category Name	Description	Examples
Group 1	Unprocessed or minimally processed foods	Natural foods that have not been industrially processed, or have only undergone minimal modifications such as cleaning, drying, or chilling.	Fresh fruits, vegetables, grains, fresh meat, milk
Group 2	Processed culinary ingredients	Processed culinary ingredients are derived from group 1 foods or else from nature by processes such as pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying. It also includes substances mined or extracted from nature.	Oil, salt, sugar, starch
Group 3	Processed foods	Simple food products produced by adding Group 2 such as salt or sugar to unprocessed (Group 1) foods.	Canned vegetables, cured meats, cheese, bread
Group 4	Ultra-processed foods (UPFs)	Formulated from industrial ingredients and additives through multiple processing steps. Typically ready-to-eat, highly palatable, and low in nutritional value.	Chips, soft drinks, instant noodles, pre-prepared (packaged) meat, breakfast cereals

Although influential in public health discourse, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not officially recognized "ultra-processed foods" as a regulatory term, nor has it issued specific policies or guidance for these products.

Structural Factors Behind the Widespread Presence of UPFs

UPFs becomes popular not simply by consumer choice, but because the whole food system makes them easy to be produced, distributed, and eaten. Behind this trend are several key forces, including industrial production, business interests, lifestyle changes, and limited regulatory oversight.

First, from the global manufacturing perspective, modern food production systems are built for efficiency, standardization, and scale. UPFs are engineered using industrial ingredients, preservatives, and additives to make them cheap to produce, easy to transport, and have long shelf lives. It is an ideal choice for global supply chains and large-scale retail.

Second, from profit perspective, the rise of UPFs is closely tied to the profit-driven business model. Major food corporations focus on high-margin, scalable products that deliver consistent returns. UPFs fit this model perfectly. These companies invest heavily in marketing, branding, and wide-reaching distribution to promote their products. As a result, UPFs are found everywhere, from gas stations to large supermarkets, making them easily accessible to a broad consumer base. For many low-income populations, the affordability and convenience make these foods a default choice.

Third, UPFs fit well into the fast pace of modern life. They are quick to prepare, easy to store and carry, and often made to taste like familiar home-cooked meals. Therefore, they have become a convenient choice for people dining outside or dealing with tight schedules and budgets, even though they may harm health over time.

Finally, limited regulatory oversight has contributed to the dominance of UPFs. In the U.S., many food additives can be used under the "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) status without strong, independent safety reviews. At the same time, food labeling does little to inform consumers about the degree of processing involved.

Health Risks Associated with UPFs Consumption

Health concerns surrounding UPFs are now central to public discussions about diet and nutrition. Even the U.S. FDA acknowledges the clear link between UPF consumption and poor health outcomes is the cause for major concern. This growing attention is well justified: in the United States, around 90% of all medical spending is tied to chronic conditions, many of which are diet-related.

Nowadays, mounting scientific evidence shows that high consumption of UPFs is associated with a wide range of serious health risks.

On February 14, 2025, the Nature Medicine published a study, which estimated that sugar-sweetened beverages alone contributed to approximately 1.2 million new cases of heart disease and 340,000 deaths worldwide in 2020.
On February 28, 2024, an umbrella review published in The BMJ, covering nearly 10 million participants across 45 meta-analyses, reported strong associations between UPFs intake and 32 adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, mental health disorders, and all-cause mortality.
On November 22, 2023, PubMed published a study, which investigated the role of adiposity in the associations between UPF consumption and head and neck cancer (HNC) and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. The result showed higher UPF consumption was associated with greater risk of HNC and OAC.
On February 11, 2019, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine followed over 44,000 adults and showed that every 10% increase in UPFs intake was linked to a 14% higher risk of all-cause death, even after controlling for lifestyle and dietary factors.

Current Food Regulations for UPFs

Although UPFs has been increasingly proven to be associated with chronic diseases by more and more studies, there is currently no clear legal framework for regulating UPFs itself in the United States. The regulatory focus is still mainly on ingredients (such as additives) and label compliance, leaving a policy gap that makes unchecked UPFs have the chance to dominate the market.

One major issue is the GRAS loophole. Under this system, food companies can self-determine that an ingredient is safe without seeking formal FDA approval. In many cases, safety assessments are conducted internally or by hired consultants, and the FDA may never even review the data. As a result, thousands of substances, including many found in UPFs, have entered the food supply chain without independent scientific review.

Another concern lies in the widespread use of controversial petroleum-based additives, such as artificial dyes (e.g., FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5) and preservatives like BHA and BHT. These chemicals are linked to potential health risks, including cancer and behavioral problems in children. While some of these additives are banned or restricted in the EU, they are still legal and commonly used in the U.S.

Moreover, current nutrition labels don’t reflect the degree of processing. While key nutrients like sugar, fat, and sodium are listed, consumers often cannot tell whether a product is ultra-processed. Technical ingredient names, artificial compounds, and vague terms like "natural flavors" also make it hard for consumers to recognize how a product processed.

Despite the current regulatory loopholes, from the local level to the federal, a series of new policy intending to address the risks of UPFs have emerged in the United States:

January 3, 2025 | Crack Down on UPFs

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order targeting UPFs, citing their links to chronic diseases. The order directs state agencies to reduce UPFs in schools, prisons, and hospitals, and to develop new procurement standards favoring minimally processed foods. It also calls for a comprehensive review of food dyes and additives still allowed in the U.S. but banned elsewhere. This move positions California as a national leader in addressing the health impacts of UPFs, and signals stronger state-level action before federal regulation remains limited.

January 14, 2025 | Propose Front-of-package (FOP) Nutrition Label

The U.S. FDA announced a proposed rule requiring most packaged foods to display a simplified nutrition label on the front of the package. This initiative aims to provide consumers with immediate, easy-to-understand information about the content of key nutrients, specifically saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. These nutrients will be categorized as "Low," "Med," or "High" to align with federal dietary guidelines that recommend limiting their intake for a healthier, nutrient-dense diet.

If finalized, large food manufacturers (with annual food sales of $10 million or more) will be given three years to comply, while smaller businesses will be given four years.

January 16, 2025 | Revokes the Authorization for FD&C Red No. 3

The U.S. FDA announced a ban on the use of FD&C Red No. 3 (erythrosine) in food and ingested drugs, citing studies that linked the dye to cancer in male rats. This decision requires food manufacturers to eliminate the dye by January 15, 2027, and drug manufacturers by January 18, 2028. The move aligns with the MAHA initiative, reflecting a broader commitment to enhancing food safety and public health in the United States.

March 10, 2025 | Eliminate the Self-affirmed GRAS Pathway

The Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the FDA to explore rulemaking to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway.

Secretary Kennedy said "Eliminating this loophole will provide transparency to consumers, help get our nation’s food supply back on track by ensuring that ingredients being introduced into foods are safe, and ultimately Make America Healthy Again."

April 22, 2025 | Phase Out Petroleum-Based Synthetic Dyes

The U.S. FDA and the HHS jointly announced a nationwide plan to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes used in foods. While accelerating the review and approval of other natural alternatives to synthetic food dyes, this move marks a key milestone in the administration's broader MAHA strategy.

Shortly thereafter, on May 9, 2025, the FDA announced the approval of three new color additive petitions, involving galdieria extract blue, butterfly pea flower extract, and calcium phosphate.

US Announces Nationwide Measures to Phase Out Petroleum-Based Food Dyes

U.S. FDA Approves Three New Natural Color Additives for Food Use