Americans of all political stripes want to regulate ultraprocessed foods. Is anyone listening?
Americans of all political stripes want to regulate ultraprocessed foods. Is anyone listening?
Americans of all political stripes want – A new survey reveals a growing consensus among Americans across the political spectrum regarding the need for stricter regulations on ultraprocessed foods. According to the findings, a significant majority—77%—of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are demanding mandatory “large warning labels” on all ultraprocessed food packaging. This shift in public opinion underscores a widespread concern about the health implications of these foods, which are often laden with additives, preservatives, and high levels of sugar, salt, or fat. The results, published in the American Journal of Public Health, highlight a critical moment for policymakers as the nation grapples with the impact of industrialized diets on chronic health conditions.
The push for transparency and safety
Public sentiment is not only calling for labels but also for broader measures to safeguard consumers. Up to 70% of respondents expressed support for banning ultraprocessed food advertisements on children’s television, while 87% urged the government to conduct safety testing on all laboratory-made chemicals before they are approved for use in food products. These figures suggest that the demand for accountability extends beyond mere labeling to include systemic changes in how food is produced and marketed. The study’s lead author, Ashley Gearhardt, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, emphasized that families are increasingly questioning the role of food corporations in shaping health outcomes.
“Families are asking important questions about how food is made, marketed and regulated, and how they can be a part of change,” Gearhardt stated.
In response to these demands, Gearhardt and a coalition of researchers have launched a public awareness initiative called “Fed UP!” The campaign aims to educate consumers about ultraprocessed foods and empower them to advocate for healthier dietary standards. The platform offers a range of tools, including explanatory articles, video content, social media guides, and practical steps for influencing local and state policies. Among its goals is encouraging citizens to petition lawmakers and engage school boards to reduce the presence of ultraprocessed foods in public schools. The initiative also highlights a collection of 17 studies, editorials, and reviews from a recent special edition of the American Journal of Public Health, providing a comprehensive overview of the health risks associated with these products.
Industry inaction despite public pressure
Despite the mounting evidence and public support, industry leaders and regulators have yet to deliver substantial reforms. The MAHA Commission, established to address the health crisis linked to ultraprocessed foods, pledged to take decisive action by August 2025. However, its final report, released in September, merely reiterated the need for continued efforts to define ultraprocessed foods. “The final MAHA report is all promises and has no teeth,” remarked Barry Popkin, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It shows that the food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical industries have effectively lobbied the White House to delay meaningful change.”
Industry influence is evident in the substantial financial resources allocated to lobbying. Between 1999 and 2020, ultraprocessed food companies funneled over $1.15 billion into political campaigns, outspending sectors like gambling, tobacco, and alcohol. This investment has likely shaped policy priorities, prioritizing profit over public health. Yet, the health consequences of inaction are becoming increasingly dire. Research indicates that even small increases in ultraprocessed food consumption can elevate the risk of severe health outcomes.
“We are not regulating enough chemical additives that go into ultraprocessed foods. We don’t have transparency into how these foods are created. We don’t have a consumer warning label,” said Laura Schmidt, a contributor to the “Fed UP!” campaign.
Global examples offer a roadmap for reform. In South America and other regions, governments have already implemented regulations that the U.S. has lagged behind. Schmidt, a professor at the University of California San Francisco, noted that while the nation’s first sugary soda tax was introduced in 2009, similar measures have not gained traction in recent years. “We are still not doing anything significant,” she remarked, expressing frustration over the lack of progress. Her statement reflects a broader sentiment that the U.S. must catch up to international standards in food safety and transparency.
Health risks tied to ultraprocessed diets
The health impacts of ultraprocessed foods are now more evident than ever. A companion study published alongside the main survey found that adults in the U.S. who consume the most of these products face nearly a 60% higher risk of dementia. The research also linked ultraprocessed diets to a 55% increased likelihood of obesity and a 40% greater chance of developing type 2 diabetes. Additionally, associations between ultraprocessed foods and cognitive decline have raised alarms among health professionals. “Conversely, we found lower risks of cognitive impairment and dementia for high vs low consumers of minimally processed foods such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables,” noted Cindy Leung, an associate professor of public health nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
These findings align with broader concerns about the nutritional quality of ultraprocessed foods. While they are designed for convenience, their long-term effects on the body are profound. For instance, studies suggest that even a modest increase in daily caloric intake from ultraprocessed foods—equivalent to one standard serving—could raise the risk of cardiovascular disease-related death by 50%. This data underscores the urgency for regulatory action, particularly as the prevalence of such foods in the American diet continues to rise.
Public health advocates argue that the current regulatory framework is insufficient to address the scale of the problem. The lack of mandatory warning labels, combined with the industry’s dominance in shaping food policies, has left consumers in the dark about the potential harms of their choices. As the “Fed UP!” campaign notes, the goal is not just to inform but to inspire a collective movement toward healthier eating habits. However, without decisive policy changes, the industry’s influence may continue to outweigh public health priorities.
While the MAHA Commission’s delayed response has disappointed many, the broader momentum for reform remains strong. With over 77% of Americans supporting the idea of labeling, and 87% calling for pre-market safety testing, the public is clearly demanding a shift in how ultraprocessed foods are treated. Whether these voices will translate into tangible action remains to be seen, but the campaign’s launch signals a critical step in the right direction. As Schmidt put it, “We are not regulating enough. We are not acting fast enough. It’s time to be fed up.”
