Experts from Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and past roles at FDA and NIH share what science says—and what remains uncertain—about the role of ultra-processed foods in health.

Are ultra-processed foods dangerous? What is the guidance on how many we can safely feed our families? And how are they specifically impacting kids?

These questions and many others are frequent topics of conversation among parents, doctors, and policymakers as research on diet and chronic disease—and the American food supply—continues to evolve.

On September 10, 2025, the National Academy of Medicine’s Health in the Headlines series brought together scientists with expertise from academia and federal research and regulation to explore what the science says—and what remains unsettled—about ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and human health. Moderated by Yale’s Megan Ranney, the conversation challenged assumptions, explored complex science, and offered practical takeaways.

This article reviews four things for families to know about how ultra-processed foods may impact health.

Quotes have been edited for clarity.

Are UPFs Unhealthy? There Is No One Answer

UPFs are commonly defined (see note) as any food that contains an industrial ingredient—one that is not normally found in a home kitchen or a restaurant, like high fructose corn syrup—explained researcher Kevin Hall. UPFs often also include cosmetic ingredients, or those that help the food look more appetizing without adding nutritional value. UPFs often contain higher levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat than whole or minimally processed foods, and consuming more of these nutrients contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, and other chronic health issues. Researchers believe a key issue with UPFs is “hyperpalatability”—how the foods are engineered to taste so good that it is difficult to eat them in moderation, making their elevated levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat even more problematic. Several studies have linked diets high in UPFs with poor health.

However, it is not accurate—or helpful—to categorize all UPFs as unhealthy. While many may be unhealthy, there are also nutritious options that are defined as UPFs, including whole-grain breads and fruit yogurts.

“The UPF definition itself doesn’t really determine whether or not a food is healthy or unhealthy.” – Kevin Hall

Avoid an All-or-Nothing Approach When Purchasing and Consuming UPFs

Since UPFs cannot be universally categorized as healthy or unhealthy, moderation, intentionality, and thoughtfulness are critical while shopping. Hall encouraged reading nutrition facts labels and using basic nutritional guidance when purchasing UPFs, prioritizing those that contain low levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat.

The fact that a product is a UPF should not dictate whether it is viewed as a healthy option. Stanford University professor Christopher Gardner explained that a pasta dish with tomato sauce, defined as a UPF because it contains high fructose corn syrup, may be a healthier option than what is otherwise available. Foods categorized as UPFs but with healthy nutritional profiles will also likely be more affordable than organic or less processed options, allowing families and schools to make healthy choices within established budgets.

While shopping, Fatima Cody Stanford, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, encouraged thinking about what food looks like in nature, and then comparing the food being considered with that image. If the food looks close to how it does in nature, it is likely less processed than, for example, the unnaturally bright orange of an ultra-processed cheese cracker. Choosing a less processed option may be a healthier choice than a more processed one, but customers should still examine the nutrition facts label.

Families can also work to expose children to fruits and vegetables early on in their lives—many times over, in fact, if the child initially rejects their broccoli or peaches. This exposure helps acclimate their taste to less processed options rather than the hyper palatability of many UPFs.

Panelists also highlighted the need to change the structures and systems that impair many Americans’ access to less-processed foods. Cody Stanford shared the example of a family living in a shelter that receives whole fruits and vegetables from a food pantry. That family, despite having healthy foods available, has nowhere to prepare or cook those foods, making them much less valuable than prepared or microwaveable food. Healthy foods need to be made available to all—but they also need to be culturally and situationally appropriate, ensuring that families can actually consume them.

“We need to make healthy foods that are actually affordable, convenient, tasty, and easily accessible. We need to be incentivizing healthy [UPFs].” – Kevin Hall

More Research Is Needed on the Impacts of UPFs on Children in the United States

While research on the health impacts of UPFs is occurring, much of it is focused on adults and non-US populations. Gardner and Cody Stanford, who both served on the most recent committee to update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, shared that, ideally, recommendations for the US population would be developed using data drawn from the US population. Population-specific data are needed to inform nutritional decision making because many factors influence how people eat, including neighborhood food availability, cultural norms and practices, food marketing policies, and access to preventative health care. These factors vary wildly from population to population—even within the United States—so more targeted research is needed to understand how UPFs are impacting American health, specifically.

Parents, clinicians, and researchers alike are interested in how UPFs impact children’s health but conducting this type of research is challenging. If a scientist wants to find out whether UPFs cause heart disease, they aren’t going to study a group of 10-year-olds—they will look at a group of adults who have developed heart disease over the length of their lives. Relatedly, if a scientist wants to understand whether UPFs are unhealthy for children, they will have to follow those children for years—presenting the challenges of retaining individuals in a study over a long period of time and a years-long delay in receiving data that can inform guidance and policy making. In light of these challenges, Hall said that research to understand the mechanisms of UPFs, or how they may contribute to chronic diseases, may be the best approach. Understanding these mechanisms should allow for a better understanding of how UPFs impact all people, including children.

“Researchers often create highly controlled conditions to answer a single, well-defined question. While that can yield valuable insights, those conditions don’t always represent how people make food choices or eat in everyday life.” – Christopher Gardner

Consider Looking Beyond UPFs to Improve American Health

Focusing exclusively on the health effects of UPFs may distract from changes that can be made immediately to improve nutrition in America. Susan Mayne, a former US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official, used salt as an example, as 70% of salt in American diets comes from processed, prepared, and packaged foods. It is already known that Americans eat too much salt and that salt consumption can contribute to a variety of chronic diseases. Therefore, reducing the amount of salt in processed, prepared, and packaged foods would help reduce the amount of salt Americans eat, and would likely also reduce the prevalence of chronic disease—without the need for any further research.

The government could also take additional steps to make UPFs healthier, based on what we already know. The FDA recently updated criteria for a food to bear the label claim “healthy.” This change will likely reduce hyperpalatability and add beneficial nutrients, like fiber, to UPFs and other processed and packaged foods. Mayne added that the government could also use its purchasing power to further improve American nutrition by requiring a growing proportion of foods purchased for government programs—including school lunches—to adhere to these new criteria.

Lastly, interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labeling of packaged foods could help individuals make healthful choices. This approach would help to make the amount of sugar, salt, and saturated fat in any food—including UPFs—immediately accessible to the customer. Labeling has been proven to work in the past—when the FDA required listing trans fat on nutrition labels, for example, consumption dropped by nearly 80%.

“When FDA mandates labeling, that drives change in the food supply and in consumer behavior.” – Susan Mayne

Keeping Up with Nutrition Research and Making Healthy Choices

It is challenging for the public to sift through all the research about UPFs and health, Gardner acknowledged. One study may show that a group of people eating many UPFs gains weight, while another study shows that a similar group loses weight. It’s only when digging into the details of the study that it becomes clear the group that lost weight was consuming only the healthiest version of UPFs, and those that gained weight were consuming more typically unhealthy UPFs. The nuance of many studies is often lost when the scientific details are translated into a media-ready soundbite, and in nutrition science, the devil is often in the details.

There may also be big differences between the questions or topics scientists choose to research, the direction policies trend toward, and the decisions individuals and families make about what they consume. However, all of these paths are interrelated, impact each other, and affect the health of the nation.

Therefore, following ongoing and new research and policies is helpful, but eating UPFs in moderation, choosing those with the most healthful nutritional profile, and using basic nutritional guidance in all diet decisions will likely lead to the most nutritious choices for people and families.

Watch a recording of the full discussion about UPFs and health below.

Note: On October 8, 2025, the state of California enacted a law that defines ultra-processed foods as “any food or beverage that contains a substance described in paragraph (2) and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3), or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance”.

Tune in to Health in the Headlines, a free webinar series from the National Academy of Medicine held on the second Wednesday of every month from 3:00-4:30 pm ET. Health in the Headlines brings together experts from opposing viewpoints to discuss timely health topics, encouraging conversation that transparently combines scientific evidence and personal, cultural, and policy values. Sign up for updates and watch recordings of past webinars.

Disclaimer: This article was prepared by Jenna Ogilvie, Ogilvie Editorial, and reviewed by Fatima Cody Stanford, Christopher Gardner, Kevin Hall, Susan Mayne, and Megan Ranney.  

Statements, recommendations, and opinions expressed in the webinar and this summary article are those of individual presenters and participants. These views are not necessarily endorsed or verified by the National Academy of Medicine or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and should not be construed as reflecting any group consensus.

The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.