More Than Half Of What Americans Eat Is Ultra-Processed

Your Grocery Cart Is Mostly 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 biggest threats to American health: ultra-processed food. Released in May 2026 by Healthy Eating Research, the report offers a concrete definition of what ultra-processed food is and a ranked list of policy options lawmakers could act on right now.

More than half of calories eaten by American adults come from ultra-processed foods, industrial products containing few or no real whole-food ingredients and made with additives that keep them cheap, shelf-stable, and highly appealing. For kids, that figure climbs even higher. A recent study found that of 651 baby and toddler food products sold in the eight largest grocery stores in North Carolina, 71% were classified as ultra-processed.

One of the biggest obstacles has been surprisingly basic: no one could agree on what ultra-processed foods actually are. Without a shared definition, lawmakers have been writing bills targeting random ingredient lists rather than the broader problem. This report, from a panel of 14 experts who met six times between July 2025 and February 2026, aims to change that.

72% of U.S. Packaged Foods Qualify as Ultra-Processed Under the Recommended Definition

Not all processed food is bad. Humans have processed food for thousands of years, freezing, fermenting, canning. Ultra-processed foods, often called UPFs, sit at the extreme end of the widely used Nova classification system, which divides food into four categories based on degree of industrial alteration. Factory-made from cheap, extracted ingredients, they often contain additives with no place in a home kitchen, things like protein isolates, mechanically separated meat, modified starches, synthetic flavor enhancers, artificial colors, and emulsifiers. Common examples include most sweetened and diet beverages, flavored chips, candies, breakfast cereals, packaged breads, flavored dairy products, processed meats, and ready-to-eat meals.

When a University of North Carolina research team modeled multiple UPF definitions against a database of nearly 93,000 packaged products sold in the U.S. between 2018 and 2024, the Nova-based approach classified 72% as ultra-processed. State-level definitions relying on short additive lists captured just 9% to 12%.

Counting Nutrients Misses the Point

Research has consistently shown that people who eat more ultra-processed foods face higher risks of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, depression, anxiety, obesity, and even early death, even after accounting for nutrient content. Something about ultra-processing itself appears to harm the body beyond what a nutrition label shows.

Ultra-processed foods tend to break down faster during digestion, causing sharper blood sugar spikes and leaving people feeling less full. Short-term clinical trials found participants eating ultra-processed meals consumed more calories than those eating minimally processed ones, even when both meal sets were matched for presented calories, fiber, sugar, salt, and macronutrients.

Emerging evidence suggests certain common additives, including non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers, may disrupt gut bacteria, triggering inflammation and contributing to poor metabolic health. Because ultra-processed foods are far more likely to be wrapped in plastic, they may also expose people to chemicals that leach from packaging materials.

One particularly notable finding: a subset of ultra-processed foods may have addictive-like properties by scientific criteria used to study addictive products such as tobacco. Foods combining high levels of refined carbohydrates and fats appear to trigger intense cravings, compulsive eating, and a temporary mood boost.

80% of Related Policy Proposals Landed in Just the First Half of 2025

Before this report, U.S. policy on ultra-processed foods was a patchwork mess. Researchers found 40 qualifying proposals explicitly targeting UPFs. Eight dated from 2021 to 2024. All 32 others arrived in just the first half of 2025. About a third defined UPFs based solely on specific additives. Another third offered no definition at all. Only 28% used criteria reasonably aligned with the science. Separately, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USDA are actively working on a federal UPF definition, and this report was designed to inform that effort.

A Blueprint Lawmakers Can Actually Use

Working through formal surveys, written feedback, and six rounds of deliberation, with votes settling the closest disagreements, the panel arrived at a central recommendation: define ultra-processed foods by checking the ingredient list. A product qualifies as a UPF if it contains any marker ingredient, an additive or industrial substance not used in home cooking. Products meeting a modified version of the FDA’s “Healthy” criteria would be eligible for exemption: enough content from recommended food groups, limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat, and no non-sugar sweeteners.

Proposed policies were ranked by impact and feasibility. Tier 1 priorities include targeted taxes on selected UPFs, procurement restrictions in schools and childcare settings, countermarketing campaigns, and mandatory front-of-package labeling. Equity was a central concern: Americans with lower incomes already consume more ultra-processed foods, and any policy response must avoid adding to those burdens.

Packaged breads, flavored yogurts, diet sodas, chicken nuggets: the category is vast, familiar, and deeply embedded in daily American life, and none of it got that way by accident. It reflects decades of deliberate engineering, foods designed to be cheap, easy to store, and nearly impossible to stop eating. Healthy Eating Research’s report gives policymakers something long absent: a grounded definition and a clear menu of next steps. What happens with it is up to them.

---

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

---