MW The U.S. government is about to define what junk food is. But will that make people put down the gummy bears?
By Beth Krietsch
It's not easy to define ultraprocessed foods, and it's unclear if doing so will change people's behavior
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has described ultraprocessed foods as "poison."
An official definition of ultraprocessed food could come as early as next month.
For many, this is welcome news. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, make up a large part of the American diet and are linked to serious chronic ailments such as heart disease. There's no denying that changes to the U.S. food system are needed, but will defining UPFs shift the way people eat and improve their health? That's up for debate.
UPFs have repeatedly been linked to poor health
It's widely accepted that eating whole foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, healthy fats and lean proteins supports health and reduces the risk of many diseases. But that's not the way most people actually eat.
Ultraprocessed foods like soft drinks, bacon and other processed meats, frozen meals, packaged baked goods and packaged savory snacks like chips account for more than 50% of the calories the average American consumes each day. And these foods are linked to a range of chronic health issues, including Type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease, certain types of cancer, irritable bowel syndrome and even early death.
UPFs have have changed the way people eat and have grown to make up such a large portion of people's diets that they can lead to nutritional imbalances. Think of it this way: If you snack on a bag of donuts, then you're unlikely to reach for an apple or a handful of almonds, and you may even skip a nutritionally balanced meal.
There has been a lot of recent talk about the harms of ultraprocessed foods, but that is nothing new. For years, nutrition scientists, food-policy researchers and public-health advocates have called for a definition of UPFs, along with policy changes that could help curtail their presence in our food supply. Now Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called these foods "poison," and they are a major theme in the Make America Healthy Again movement he leads.
Ultraprocessed foods aren't all the same
There is general agreement that ultraprocessed foods are high-calorie foods high in unhealthy fats, sugar and salt, typically with low nutritional value. Often, they're processed with emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, stabilizers and other additives. For the most part, they're branded products manufactured to be convenient, tasty, shelf-stable and difficult to stop eating. But there's no single formal definition of the term.
To make a meaningful change in the U.S. food system, a clear and actionable definition of ultraprocessed food is needed. But defining the term is far more challenging than it may seem.
The most commonly used definition comes from the NOVA system, which was developed by Brazilian researchers in 2009 and categorizes foods into four categories based on the extent and purpose of processing they undergo. The categories are: unprocessed and minimally processed foods, processed ingredients, processed foods and ultraprocessed foods. The ultraprocessed category includes foods that are commercially processed using ingredients and additives that are unlikely to be found in home kitchens. Usually they contain few or no whole ingredients.
The NOVA system is widely used in nutrition research. But like other definitions, it has its limitations. Labeling a food as ultraprocessed doesn't always indicate whether or not it's nutritious, and that could cause confusion. And researchers have pointed out that existing classification systems that define UPFs fail to clearly specify processing techniques.
Even a clear definition of UPFs runs the risk of stigmatizing certain healthy foods. Ultraprocessed foods vary widely in composition, nutrient profiles and how they're processed. They don't all have the same effects on health, making it difficult to group them under a single label. Should soy milk be in the same category as gummy bears or soda, simply because it's made with an emulsifier? This is where UPF subcategories and better nutrition education could be helpful.
In a 2023 study, researchers found that ultraprocessed foods like white bread and soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, but other ultraprocessed foods like whole-grain bread and yogurt were associated with a lower risk of Type 2 diabetes. And in a 2024 study, sugary drinks and processed meats were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but ultraprocessed bread, yogurt, dairy desserts, cold cereals and savory snacks were associated with a reduced risk.
A watered-down definition, meanwhile, could end up allowing certain ultraprocessed foods to fly under the radar, especially if food companies find a way to get around whatever UPF definition or label is proposed.
MAHA's mixed signals
RFK Jr. made his announcement that a UPF definition is coming not at a press conference, but during an appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast. That's just one example in a broader trend where the Trump administration doesn't appear to take nutrition policy all that seriously, at least when seen through a traditional public-relations lens.
Kevin Hall, a leading nutrition scientist who carried out prominent research on the links between ultraprocessed foods and health, left his job at the National Institutes of Health last year, citing censorship concerns. The Trump administration has cut funding for federal nutrition programs and research. And the latest dietary guidelines are, in some ways, inconsistent and unclear.
A UPF definition is long overdue. But to bring about meaningful changes in the way Americans eat and how our food environment affects public health, the new UPF definition must be clear, specific and carefully thought out - with input from respected nutrition experts. And this is just the start.
Rather than leaving Americans personally responsible for eating fewer ultraprocessed foods, a definition should be accompanied by policies and regulations that support public health.
Will it be used to get ultraprocessed foods out of school meals and regulate food marketing to children, and to increase access to fresh, healthy foods? Will it be thoroughly integrated within the latest dietary guidelines? Or is this all wishful thinking?
Beth Krietsch is a writer specializing in health, food, and wellness. She holds a master's degree in public health, and her writing has appeared in Time, The Guardian, Self, Outside, Eater, HuffPost and Prevention.
-Beth Krietsch
This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
March 23, 2026 12:17 ET (16:17 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Comments