More than half of what Americans eat is ultra-processed.

Most of your grocery cart is ultra-processed food, experts estimate

A group of leading nutrition scientists, food policy lawyers, and public health experts has released what may be the most actionable blueprint yet for tackling one of the greatest threats to American health: ultra-processed foods. The report, released in May 2026 by Healthy Eating Research, provides a concrete definition of what ultra-processed foods are and a ranked list of policy options that lawmakers can act on now.

More than half of the calories consumed by American adults come from ultra-processed foods, industrial products that contain little or no real, natural food ingredients and are made with additives that keep them cheap, long-lasting, and highly appealing. For children, the number is even higher. A recent study found that of the 651 infant and toddler food items sold in North Carolina’s eight largest grocery stores, 71% were classified as ultra-processed.

One of the biggest obstacles was surprisingly basic. That is, no one could agree on what ultra-processed foods actually are. Without a common definition, lawmakers are crafting bills that target random lists of ingredients rather than broader issues. This report, by a panel of 14 experts that met six times between July 2025 and February 2026, aims to change that.

72% of processed foods in the United States qualify as ultra-processed based on recommended definitions

Not all processed foods are bad. Humans have been processing food for thousands of years, including freezing, fermenting, and canning. Ultra-processed foods, often referred to as UPF, are at the far end of the widely used Nova classification system, which divides foods into four categories based on the degree of industrial modification. Products made in factories from cheap extracted raw materials often contain additives that don’t belong in home kitchens, such as isolated proteins, mechanically separated meats, modified starches, synthetic flavors, artificial colors, and emulsifiers. Common examples include most sweetened and diet drinks, flavored chips, candy, breakfast cereals, packaged breads, flavored dairy products, processed meats, and ready-to-eat foods.

When researchers at the University of North Carolina modeled multiple UPF definitions on a database of approximately 93,000 packaged products sold in the United States between 2018 and 2024, the Nova-based approach classified 72% as ultra-engineered. State-level definitions that relied on short additive lists captured only 9% to 12%.

Counting nutrients misses the point

Studies consistently show that people who eat more ultra-processed foods have an increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, depression, anxiety, obesity, and even premature death, even when nutritional values ​​are taken into account. There seems to be something about ultra-processing itself that is more harmful to the body than nutrition labels indicate.

Ultra-processed foods tend to break down more quickly during digestion, causing blood sugar levels to spike and making you feel less full. A short-term clinical trial found that participants who ate ultra-processed foods consumed more calories than those who ate minimally processed foods, even when presented with calories, fiber, sugar, salt, and macronutrients for both meal sets.

Emerging evidence suggests that certain common additives, including non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers, can disrupt gut bacteria, cause inflammation and worsen metabolic health. Because ultra-processed foods are much more likely to be packaged in plastic, people can also be exposed to chemicals that leach from the packaging materials.

One particularly noteworthy finding is that some ultra-processed foods may have addictive-like properties, according to the scientific standards used to study addictive products such as tobacco. Foods that combine high levels of refined carbohydrates and fats appear to cause intense cravings, impulsive eating, and temporary mood elevation.

80% of relevant policy proposals will be adopted in the first half of 2025

Until this report was released, U.S. ultra-processed food policy was a patchwork mess. The researchers found 40 eligible proposals explicitly targeting UPF. Eight are from 2021 to 2024, and the other 32 all arrived in the first half of 2025. Approximately one-third defined UPF based solely on specific additives. In the remaining third, no definition was provided at all. Only 28% used standards that were reasonably consistent with science. Separately, the FDA, Department of Health and Human Services, and USDA are actively working to define a federal UPF, and this report was prepared to inform that effort.

A blueprint that legislators can actually use

After formal research, written feedback, six rounds of deliberation, and the closest disagreements resolved by voting, the committee arrived at its core recommendations. The idea was to check the ingredient list and define ultra-processed foods. A product qualifies as UPF if it contains marker ingredients, additives, or industrial substances not used in home cooking. Products that meet a modified version of the FDA’s “healthy” criteria are eligible for an exemption. This means it contains sufficient amounts from recommended food groups, limits added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat, and contains no sweeteners other than sugar.

Proposed policies were ranked by impact and feasibility. Tier 1 priorities include targeted taxes on selected UPFs, procurement restrictions in schools and child care facilities, countermarketing campaigns, and mandatory front-of-pack labeling. Fairness was a central concern. Low-income Americans already consume more ultra-processed foods, and any policy response must avoid increasing this burden.

Packaged bread, flavored yogurt, diet soda, and chicken nuggets. This category is vast, familiar, and deeply embedded in American daily life, and none of it became so by chance. It reflects decades of deliberate engineering: food designed to be cheap, easy to store, and nearly impossible to stop eating. The Healthy Eating Research report provides policymakers with what has been missing for a long time: an evidence-based definition and a clear menu of next steps. So what happens is up to them.

Disclaimer: This article is based on a technical report and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute medical or dietary advice. Readers with specific health concerns should consult a qualified health care provider.