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 – Public sentiment in the United States is shifting toward a unified demand for stricter oversight of ultraprocessed foods, a trend that has gathered momentum despite industry resistance. A recent survey reveals that a majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are pushing for regulatory changes to address the health risks linked to these foods. This growing consensus includes not only health advocates and scientists but also a diverse group of citizens who are increasingly concerned about the role of processed foods in their daily lives.
Majority Call for Warning Labels and Safety Standards
According to the latest poll published Wednesday in the American Journal of Public Health, 77% of respondents—spanning Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—are advocating for mandatory “large warning labels” on ultraprocessed food packaging. The survey also highlights that up to 70% of Americans support banning the advertising of these foods during children’s television programming. Additionally, 87% of participants believe the government should conduct safety tests on all laboratory-made chemicals before they are used in food production.
“Families are raising critical questions about how food is manufactured, promoted, and regulated,” said Ashley Gearhardt, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan and lead author of the study. “They’re asking how they can influence the system to prioritize healthier choices.” To address these concerns, Gearhardt and a team of researchers have launched the “Fed UP!” campaign, a public awareness initiative designed to educate consumers and empower them to demand policy reforms.
The campaign’s platform includes a range of resources such as explanatory guides, research summaries, instructional videos, and social media content. It also provides actionable steps for individuals to advocate for change, including strategies to petition local and state officials for stricter regulations and methods to persuade school boards to limit ultraprocessed foods in school cafeterias. The initiative is supported by 17 studies, editorials, and reviews published alongside the survey, offering a comprehensive look at the health implications of ultraprocessed foods.
Global Success Models Offer Lessons
Laura Schmidt, a scientific contributor to the “Fed UP!” campaign and professor at the University of California San Francisco, emphasized the urgency of action. “We’ve seen successful regulatory frameworks in South America and other regions, yet the U.S. is still lagging behind,” she stated. “Our current approach to chemical additives in food is insufficient. There’s a lack of transparency, and consumers aren’t being adequately informed about the risks.”
Scandinavian countries, for instance, have implemented clear labeling requirements and restrictions on marketing to children, resulting in measurable improvements in public health. Similarly, Argentina and Chile have introduced taxes on ultraprocessed foods, reducing their consumption and lowering rates of obesity and diabetes. These examples highlight what Schmidt calls a “missed opportunity” in the U.S., where policy changes have been slow to materialize despite growing evidence of harm.
Industry Resistance and Lobbying Efforts
Despite the public outcry, the ultraprocessed food industry continues to resist regulatory changes. According to the survey, industry lobbying efforts have been a significant obstacle to progress. Between 1999 and 2020, companies in this sector spent over $1.15 billion on lobbying, outpacing industries like gambling, tobacco, and alcohol. This financial influence has shaped policy decisions, often prioritizing profit over public health.
One notable instance of this resistance was the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, which was tasked with addressing the ultraprocessed food crisis. The commission promised decisive action by August 2025, but its final report in September 2025 only outlined plans to “continue efforts” in defining ultraprocessed foods. “This report is full of promises but lacks concrete measures,” noted Barry Popkin, a public health professor at the University of North Carolina. “It shows how the food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical industries have successfully influenced policy at the highest levels.”
Health Risks of Inaction
The stakes of inaction are significant. Research indicates that even small increases in ultraprocessed food consumption can have severe consequences. For example, studies have shown that consuming an additional 10% of daily calories from these foods—equivalent to one serving—may double the risk of cardiovascular disease-related mortality. Similarly, higher intake of ultraprocessed foods is linked to a 55% increased chance of obesity and a 40% greater likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes.
Emerging evidence also points to a connection between ultraprocessed foods and cognitive decline. A companion study published alongside the survey found that adults in the U.S. who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods had nearly a 60% higher risk of dementia compared to those with lower consumption. The research further noted that individuals who regularly ate minimally processed foods, such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, experienced lower rates of cognitive impairment. “This data underscores how the composition of our diets affects both physical and mental health,” said Cindy Leung, a public health nutrition professor at Harvard University.
“Ultraprocessed foods are turning human thighs into well-marbled steaks,” Leung added, using a metaphor to illustrate the industry’s impact. “They’re not just changing what we eat—they’re altering the very fabric of our health.” The findings suggest that the long-term effects of these foods extend beyond immediate nutritional concerns, potentially influencing brain function and increasing the risk of neurodegenerative diseases.
A Call for Systemic Change
As the movement for reform gains traction, the challenge lies in translating public demand into legislative action. Gearhardt stressed that the “Fed UP!” campaign aims to bridge this gap by making complex scientific information accessible and actionable. “We need to equip people with the tools to push for change at every level of government,” she explained.
The campaign also highlights the importance of holding food manufacturers accountable. With transparency and consumer education as key components, the initiative seeks to create a more informed public that can make healthier choices. However, experts warn that sustained progress will require more than awareness—it will demand political will and regulatory courage.
“We can’t afford to wait for another promise,” Schmidt said. “The science is clear, and the public is ready. It’s time for regulators to act decisively.” The urgency of the situation is underscored by the scale of health risks, from heart disease to cognitive decline, all tied to the widespread consumption of ultraprocessed foods. As the debate continues, the question remains: will policymakers finally heed the call for reform?