Ultraprocessed Foods and the Future of Food as Medicine

With an estimated 70% of the U.S. food supply classified as ultraprocessed, the conversation underscored a growing consensus—this is no longer just a nutrition issue, but a public health crisis demanding systemic solutions.

Ultraprocessed foods are engineered to be hyper-palatable, shelf-stable, and convenient, often relying on refined starches, added sugars, sodium, industrial fats, and chemical additives. While these products dominate grocery shelves and food environments, mounting evidence links high UPF consumption to obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, depression, and other diet-related conditions.

A landmark review published in The Lancet concluded that the evidence is now strong enough to justify a global public health response.

Why Processing Matters More Than We Think

As Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, Director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, explained, the risks of ultraprocessed foods go far beyond individual nutrients.

The NOVA classification system, developed by Brazilian researcher Carlos Monteiro, shifted the scientific lens from what nutrients foods contain to how foods are processed. Over the past decade, more than 100 observational studies and multiple randomized controlled trials across the U.S., Japan, and the U.K. have confirmed that processing itself independently drives harm, even when calories, fat, sugar, fiber, and protein are held constant.

The mechanisms are multifactorial:

• Loss of food structure: UPFs are molecularly disassembled and reassembled, altering digestion and disrupting gut microbiome signaling

• Additives and chemicals: Many common additives act as endocrine disruptors, obesogens, or carcinogens

• Environmental contaminants: Exposure to pesticides, microplastics, and packaging-derived chemicals

• Hyper-palatability and portion engineering: Designed to override satiety signals and encourage overconsumption

• Aggressive marketing and accessibility: Especially in low-income and urban communities

“No single ingredient is the problem,” Mozaffarian emphasized. “It’s the totality of processing that creates harm.”

Access, Equity, and the Reality on the Ground

Congressman Shri Thanedar of Michigan’s 13th District highlighted how ultraprocessed foods disproportionately affect communities facing structural barriers to healthy eating.

In cities like Detroit, where nearly one-quarter of residents live at or below the poverty line, access to fresh, nutritious food is often limited by transportation, cost, and neighborhood food infrastructure. For many families, the closest food source is a gas station or convenience store stocked almost entirely with ultraprocessed products.

While grassroots efforts such as Detroit’s 22,000 community gardens demonstrate the power of local food solutions, panelists emphasized that education and individual behavior change alone are not enough. Meaningful progress requires policy, regulation, and healthcare-aligned interventions.

The Policy Challenge: Defining Ultraprocessed Foods

Despite the growing evidence base, the U.S. still lacks a unified federal definition of ultraprocessed foods—a gap that complicates regulation, labeling, and public guidance.

Panelists discussed recent state-level efforts, noting both progress and pitfalls. While some policies inadvertently focus on individual nutrients like saturated fat or sugar, experts cautioned that this approach risks repeating past mistakes—allowing ultraprocessed products to meet nutrient thresholds while remaining fundamentally harmful.

Instead, leading proposals in states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania focus on processing methods, additive profiles, and structural integrity, aligning more closely with the science behind UPFs.

A clear, science-based federal definition would be a critical step toward reformulating the food supply and supporting healthier defaults across schools, healthcare systems, and public programs.

Food as Medicine: A Path Forward

Throughout the discussion, one theme remained clear: reducing ultraprocessed food consumption requires more than restriction—it requires accessible, appealing alternatives rooted in Food as Medicine principles.

Programs that expand access to whole and minimally processed foods, including medically tailored meals, produce prescriptions, and nutrition education, can help:

• Improve metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes

• Reduce healthcare utilization and long-term costs

• Support dignity, choice, and cultural relevance

• Address health inequities driven by food access

Food as Medicine reframes nutrition not as an individual burden, but as a core component of healthcare delivery.

Looking Ahead

As evidence continues to mount, the question is no longer whether ultraprocessed foods harm health, but how quickly systems can respond.

The future of nutrition policy and healthcare will depend on aligning science, regulation, and food access—shifting away from ultra-engineered products and toward whole, nourishing foods that support long-term wellbeing.

Because when food becomes part of the solution, not the problem, we don’t just improve health outcomes—we build healthier communities.