Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become a major concern in global public health, not only because they are linked to chronic diseases, notably obesity \u2014 they are calorie-rich and nutrient-poor \u2014 but also because geopolitical and commercial forces shape where, how, and to whom they are marketed.\u00a0<\/p>\n
This analysis focuses on the impact of American UPFs on the Global South, since the United States is home to many of the world\u2019s largest UPF manufacturers. But it should also concern Europeans, as major UPF manufacturers are based in Europe and their impact across the world is very similar: In every case, national regulations governing food additives, processing methods, and marketing practices in the manufacturer\u2019s home country have implications well beyond national borders.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The recent expansion of American UPF-producing companies into African markets is of particular interest, showing how the U.S. food system is increasingly shaping diets across the continent and affecting consumption patterns, health outcomes, and national food policies.<\/p>\n
Current science on UPFs<\/p>\n
The scientific literature on UPFs has expanded rapidly, with multiple umbrella reviews synthesizing epidemiological evidence across millions of participants. A 2026 umbrella review<\/a> in Nutrition Reviews found consistent associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk of obesity, respiratory disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, digestive disorders, mental health conditions, and multiple cancers.\u00a0<\/p>\n These findings echo an earlier, 2024 umbrella review<\/a>\u00a0in The BMJ, which reported convincing or highly suggestive evidence linking UPF exposure to early mortality, cardiometabolic disease, depression, anxiety, adverse sleep outcomes, wheezing, and obesity.\u00a0<\/p>\n These reviews build on the NOVA classification system<\/a>, which defines UPFs (Group 4) as industrial formulations made largely from extracted substances and cosmetic additives rather than whole foods. Crucially, as the 2025 Lancet series<\/a> on UPFs underscored, the health risks of these foods do not stem merely from poor nutrient profiles (high fat, sugar, or salt). Rather, the industrial processing itself actively alters the food matrix, driving adverse health outcomes through mechanisms like rapid digestibility and gut microbiota disruption.\u00a0<\/p>\n The 2025 Lancet series marked a turning point in global health, demonstrating that UPFs are a \u201cdistinct category of harm and a major structural driver of the global obesity crisis, with profound implications for equity, sustainability, and food sovereignty,\u201d as mentioned in a May 2026 commentary on the Series<\/a> by the Policy and Prevention Committee of the World Obesity Federation<\/a>.<\/p>\n UPF spread across the Global South to date<\/p>\n To understand the situation in Africa, it helps to look at Latin America, which was a natural market for American firms long before Africa opened up. This has exposed Latin America to UPFs far longer and, so far, the region has shown a commendable ability to alert consumers to health and nutrition concerns. Africa, by contrast, is a newer market experiencing rapid population growth and health challenges and has, as a result, been much slower to respond.\u00a0<\/p>\n Regulatory food policies in Latin America<\/p>\n International organizations had a definite impact on the evolution of national food policies and regulations in the region. Notably, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO\/WHO<\/a>) views UPFs as a primary driver of the obesity and noncommunicable disease epidemics in the Americas. Through the PAHO Nutrient Profile Model<\/a>, PAHO has actively advocated for policies that restrict their marketing, mandate front-of-package warning labels, and discourage their consumption.\u00a0<\/p>\n At the country level, in 2010, Mexico established the region\u2019s first front-of-pack nutritional labeling<\/a> framework, requiring Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) icons on packaged foods under standard NOM-05 and becoming the world\u2019s strictest front-of-package <\/a>labeling law for certain processed food and non-alcoholic beverage products.\u00a0<\/p>\n In October 2014, under then President Michelle Bachelet (now a candidate for UN Secretary General), Chile restructured its tax on non-alcoholic beverages by increasing the levy on high-sugar drinks to 18% while reducing it for low-sugar alternatives. Two years later, Chile tightened its broader framework<\/a> with the landmark Law 20.606, introducing the world\u2019s first mandatory front-of-package black \u201cstop-sign\u201d warning labels (octagonal with the wording \u201calto en,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0meaning \u201chigh in\u201d) alongside strict bans on marketing such UPFs to children, including in schools.\u00a0<\/p>\n Chile and Mexico were not isolated cases; they sparked a regional regulatory wave. Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, and Colombia all adopted mandatory front-of-package warning systems and marketing restrictions.<\/p>\n In conclusion, far from remaining passive, Latin America has established the world\u2019s most aggressive regulatory front against poor diet quality. The rapid spread of octagonal warning labels and targeted taxes across the region proves that food processing and nutrition can drive decisive, large-scale public health policy. \u00a0<\/p>\n The situation in Africa<\/p>\n In contrast to Latin America\u2019s regulatory assertiveness, Africa is increasingly targeted by transnational food corporations as a prime growth market. It has long attracted major European conglomerates such as Nestl\u00e9 (Switzerland), Unilever (UK), and Danone (France).\u00a0<\/p>\n Now, as American multinational food companies have extended their activities to virtually all corners of the world, Africa, a continent projected<\/a> to have the fastest population growth in the world in the years to come, has now become a particularly attractive prospect. Yet, it is still true that across much of the continent, European manufacturers hold comparable to or even greater shares than US giants like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo or Mondelez.\u00a0<\/p>\n Studies from the African Centre for Biodiversity<\/a>, a research and biosafety advocacy centre based in South Africa, evaluating the overall situation in Africa, warn that this corporate penetration \u2014 bolstered by expanding supermarket networks and weak local marketing restrictions \u2014 is rapidly displacing traditional nutritious, minimally processed diets with cheap ultra-processed formulations.\u00a0<\/p>\n Bottomline, major manufacturers \u2014 including PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, and others, including Europeans \u2014 shape global food availability, pricing, and nutritional quality.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to the widely-read Ny\u00e9l\u00e9ni Newsletter, published<\/a> by the Food Sovereignty Movement<\/a>, recent data (see the 2019 Monteiro study<\/a> and Global Food Research 2023<\/a>) show that investment in UPFs (breweries, distilleries, soft drinks, sugar products) comprises 22% of all foreign direct investment into the food system and is double that invested into farms and plantations.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The influence of those major conglomerates over supply chains, retail environments, and consumer behavior is closely tied to the nature and shape of regulatory systems in their home countries. Here we shall examine more closely the U.S. system, keeping in mind that multiple agents contribute to the process, including U.S. trade missions, industry conferences, and promotional campaigns that also help expand African demand for American food products.<\/p>\n In 2024, U.S. processed food exports to Sub-Saharan Africa totaled<\/a> $523.6 million. These exports include snack foods, non-alcoholic beverages, sauces, condiments, pasta, processed cereals, and other UPF categories. The U.S. and other exporters have made processed food increasingly significant in African retail markets.<\/p>\n Intensive advertising is one factor driving this growth. For example, a 2024 study<\/a> in PLOS Global Public Health found that UPFs are heavily promoted around schools in Kenya, with nearly half of mapped food advertisements featuring UPFs.\u00a0<\/p>\n More broadly, companies often target children through cartoon characters, mascots, price discounts, digital advertising, emotional appeals, and placement near schools and community centers. As a result, UPFs are not only widely available but also aggressively marketed, shaping eating habits from an early age.<\/p>\n The role of the U.S. at home and abroad<\/p>\n How the U.S. Government regulates food providers: The United States regulates food additives<\/a> through Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, particularly Part 170, which requires substances added to food \u2014 whether directly or indirectly \u2014 to either undergo premarket approval or qualify as \u201cGenerally Recognized as Safe\u201d (GRAS).\u00a0<\/p>\n The GRAS pathway has allowed manufacturers to self-affirm the safety of additives without formal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review, provided the substance has a history of safe use or is supported by publicly available scientific evidence.\u00a0<\/p>\n Criticism of the GRAS system: Former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler and others have criticized<\/a> the GRAS system for favoring industry interests over precautionary public health protections. Kessler has filed a citizen petition seeking to revoke the GRAS status of certain processed refined carbohydrates. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, has expressed similar concerns. Although his department has begun reviewing UPFs, it has not yet taken concrete action.<\/p>\n Kessler was deeply involved in efforts to limit tobacco use, which has parallels to UPF marketing. A 2026 study<\/a> in the American Journal of Public Health<\/a> documents how U.S. tobacco companies \u2014 Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds \u2014 applied cigarette-selling tactics to market UPFs worldwide. These strategies included manipulating product size (e.g., \u201cking-size\u201d sugary drinks), engineering \u201clight\u201d versions of products to appear healthier, and building integrated distribution networks across continents.\u00a0<\/p>\n The FAO\/WHO blueprint<\/p>\n Both the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have built frameworks for regulating unhealthy food environments.\u00a0<\/p>\n WHO\u2019s Global Plan of Action for Non-Communicable Diseases<\/a> recognizes UPFs as a public health concern. Key elements of WHO guidance include:\u00a0<\/p>\n Recommendations to limit UPFs in national dietary guidelines; FAO\u2019s approach focuses on food systems and agricultural policy through:\u00a0<\/p>\n encouraging traditional food systems and local production; Of major significance is the UPF link to One Health<\/a>, which brings another critical perspective to bear.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nsupporting fiscal measures such as sugar taxes;\u00a0
\nFront-of-package labeling (FOPL) systems such as warning labels;
\npolicies to restrict marketing to children, especially for sugary beverages and snacks;\u00a0
\npromotion of whole foods and minimally processed diets.<\/p>\n
\nhighlighting the role of UPFs in dietary transitions and biodiversity loss;\u00a0
\nsupporting nutrition-sensitive agriculture to reduce reliance on imported UPFs;\u00a0
\ncollaborating with WHO on global dietary guidelines.<\/p>\n