Imagine a silent crisis unfolding across our planet: everyday foods we love – from sodas to snacks – are quietly undermining our well-being, fueling a surge in serious health issues. And experts are now demanding immediate, decisive steps to turn the tide.
But here's where it gets controversial – these aren't just any foods; we're talking about ultra-processed foods that are overtaking traditional meals worldwide, diluting the quality of our diets and directly tying into the escalating rates of chronic conditions linked to what we eat.
Despite the massive marketing budgets of top ultra-processed food giants, which eclipse even the full annual spending of the World Health Organization (check out this overview: https://www.sciencealert.com/what-does-the-world-health-organisation-do), there's a wealth of strategies available for governments, local groups, and healthcare experts to tackle this head-on.
These insights emerge from three groundbreaking studies we've published today in The Lancet (explore them here: http://www.thelancet.com/series-do/ultra-processed-food%2522%2522), shedding light on this pressing issue.
For those just starting to explore this topic, ultra-processed foods are essentially concoctions crafted in factories using industrial components and artificial enhancers, often with little to no whole, natural ingredients intact. Think about soft drinks, potato chips, and numerous breakfast cereals – these are prime examples, engineered to be hyper-palatable and long-lasting.
And this is the part most people miss – the core challenge isn't a shortfall in personal resolve or willpower among consumers. Instead, it's deeply rooted in commercial forces, driven by a formidable industry that profits immensely from these products.
Let's dive into the evidence, shall we? Our first paper (available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01565-X/fulltext) compiles data demonstrating how ultra-processed foods are infiltrating diets everywhere. Over the years, they've grown to represent a significant portion of what people eat globally. In places like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, they've dominated for decades, making up about half of daily caloric intake and essentially becoming the default national cuisine.
Furthermore, this study reveals that diets laden with these foods promote excessive eating and fall short nutritionally: they're packed with more sugars and saturated fats, deliver higher calorie density, but skimp on fiber, essential vitamins (learn more about these nutrients here: https://www.sciencealert.com/what-are-vitamins-and-do-we-really-need-to-take-them), minerals, and whole foods.
The third aspect? It outlines the health hazards. Through a comprehensive analysis of 104 long-term studies, we found that 92 linked higher consumption to increased risks of various chronic illnesses. Meta-analyses confirmed connections to obesity, type 2 diabetes (dive deeper here: https://www.sciencealert.com/diabetes), hypertension, elevated cholesterol, heart disease, kidney issues, Crohn's disease, depression (explore this mental health aspect: https://www.sciencealert.com/depression), and even premature death from all causes.
Crucially, it's not solely about overloading on sugar, salt, or fat. Controlled experiments (such as those in: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30248-7 and https://dom-pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.15922) indicate that when people consume diets rich in ultra-processed items, they unwittingly add 500 to 800 extra calories daily, pack on weight and body fat, and eat faster compared to equivalent meals with minimal processing – even when the macronutrient balances (that's the mix of proteins, carbs, and fats) are identical.
This happens because these foods are denser in energy, irresistibly tasty, and have soft textures that make it all too easy to overindulge. While more studies would help solidify our understanding, the current proof is robust enough to warrant a worldwide public health initiative.
Shifting gears to solutions, our second paper (check it out: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01566-1/fulltext%2522%2522) proposes practical policy ideas for leaders aiming to intervene. Here are four key approaches:
Transforming the products themselves: Simply swapping out sugar for artificial sweeteners or fats for mimic additives doesn't cut it. Governments could instead enforce caps on certain additives and introduce identifiers for ultra-processed items, like specific colors, flavors, or high levels of sugars, fats, and salts, to flag them for stricter rules.
Improving food surroundings: Proven tactics include mandatory warning labels on packaging, which effectively educate buyers and cut down on purchases (see evidence here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01566-1/fulltext). We also need to shield kids under 18 (especially online: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01566-1/fulltext) from marketing tactics, extending beyond just 'kids' TV time. Taxes on sugary beverages (at least 20%: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01566-1/fulltext) and certain ultra-processed goods could fund subsidies for fruits, veggies, and home-cooked meals for families on tight budgets. Banning these foods from schools (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01566-1/fulltext), hospitals, and public spaces, restricting their shelf space in stores, and limiting sales near educational sites are other smart moves.
Reining in corporate influence: Authorities could regulate company product lines, track and limit ultra-processed sales shares, bolster anti-monopoly laws, and implement taxes to reduce excessive market dominance.
Overhauling subsidies and chains: Redirect farm supports from crops like corn, soy, and sugar – often used in ultra-processed foods – toward sustainable options, and sync environmental regulations (think reducing plastics or conserving water) with nutritional priorities.
Success hinges on customized, integrated strategies – no single fix will do the trick.
Now, addressing the elephant in the room: our third paper (read it here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01567-3/fulltext) investigates why ultra-processed foods are dominating our menus and outlines a united global health pushback.
The root cause? Tackling corporate might and profit motives. Ultra-processing represents the food industry's most lucrative model.
Major global players control vast networks for supply, promotion, and advocacy, expanding markets, molding research and public opinion, and obstructing reforms. With their profits, they outspend on ads – in 2024, leading firms' marketing eclipsed the WHO's total budget – fund factories to spread these products worldwide, and hire lobbyists.
Similar to tactics from tobacco and fossil fuel sectors (as detailed in: https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-024-01020-4 and https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00013-2/abstract), they employ lobbying, legal challenges, self-imposed rules, and funded science to stall progress.
We advocate for a coordinated worldwide response: disrupt the business model through taxes on production, mandatory plastic recycling for corporations, and reallocating funds to bolster healthy food makers and households; safeguard policy and science from undue influence via conflict checks and industry engagement guidelines, ditching self-regulation for public laws; and forge alliances for advocacy, from legal aid to effective messaging to influence leaders.
Our research underscores that inaction means ultra-processed foods will keep encroaching on diets, jeopardizing health, economies, traditions, and the environment. The moment to mobilize is upon us.
What do you think – should we pin the blame on big corporations for pushing these foods, or is it more about personal choices? And if governments intervene, where do we draw the line to avoid overreach? Share your perspectives in the comments; we'd love to hear agreements, disagreements, or even counterpoints!
Phillip Baker, ARC Future Fellow and Sydney Horizon Fellow, School of Public Health, University of Sydney; Camila Corvalan, Full Professor of the Public Nutrition Unit of the Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, Universidad de Chile; Carlos Monteiro, Professor at the Department of Nutrition of the School of Public Health, Universidade de São Paulo (USP); Gyorgy Scrinis, Associate Professor of Food Politics and Policy, The University of Melbourne; and Priscila Machado, Research Fellow, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University
This piece is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. View the original here.
