Media release
From:
Speakers:
- Priscila Machado is from the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN) at Deakin University
- Gyorgy Scrinis is from the School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences at the University of Melbourne
- Mark Lawrence is from the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN) at Deakin University
- Phillip Baker is from the School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney
Experts warn global rise in ultra-processed foods poses major public health threat; call for worldwide policy reform
- A new three paper Series published in The Lancet reviews evidence that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are displacing fresh and minimally processed foods and meals, worsening diet quality, and are associated with an increased risk of multiple chronic diseases.
- The Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health argues, although additional studies on the impact of UPFs on human health will be valuable, further research should not delay immediate and decisive public health action to tackle UPFs and improve diets globally.
- Authors say improving diets cannot rely on consumer behaviour change alone - it requires coordinated policies to reduce UPF production, marketing, and consumption, alongside tackling high fat, sugar and salt and improving access to healthy food.
- The Series sets out how UPFs are the product of a food economy driven by corporate profit, not nutrition or sustainability. Only a coordinated global response can combat UPF companies' political playbook - the largest barrier to implementing effective policies to reduce the share of UPFs in people’s diets.
The increase of UPFs in diets worldwide presents an urgent challenge to health that demands coordinated policies and advocacy action to address, says a new three paper Series authored by 43 global experts and published in The Lancet. The Series exposes the tactics UPF companies use to drive consumption and prevent effective policy. It outlines a roadmap for change towards impactful government regulation, community mobilisation, and accessible and affordable healthier diets.
Professor Carlos Monteiro, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, says, “The growing consumption of ultra-processed foods is reshaping diets worldwide, displacing fresh and minimally processed foods and meals. This change in what people eat is fuelled by powerful global corporations who generate huge profits by prioritising ultra-processed products, supported by extensive marketing and political lobbying to stop effective public health policies to support healthy eating.”
Professor Camila Corvalan, University of Chile, Chile, adds, “Addressing this challenge requires governments to step up and introduce bold, coordinated policy action - from including markers of UPFs in front-of-package labels to restricting marketing and implementing taxes on these products to fund greater access to affordable, nutritious foods.”
Dr Phillip Baker, University of Sydney, Australia, adds, “We need a strong global public health response - like the coordinated efforts to challenge the tobacco industry. Including safeguarding policy spaces from political lobbying and building powerful coalitions to advocate for healthy, fair and sustainable food systems and stand-up to corporate power.”
Evidence of UPFs harms justifies immediate public health action UPFs are novel branded products made from inexpensive industrial ingredients such as hydrogenated oils, protein isolates or glucose/fructose syrup, and cosmetic food additives (eg. dyes, artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers). They are designed and marketed to displace fresh and minimally processed foods and traditional meals, while maximising corporate profits.
The first paper in the new Lancet Series reviews the scientific evidence on UPFs and health, since the term UPFs was coined by Prof Carlos Monteiro and team in 2009. The Series presents consistent evidence that UPFs are displacing long-established dietary patterns, worsening diet quality, and are associated with an increased risk of multiple chronic diet-related diseases.
Several national surveys indicate the share of UPFs in diets is on the rise: estimated energy contribution of UPFs to total household food purchases or daily food intake tripled in Spain (11% to 32%) and China (4% to 10%) over the last three decades, and increased (10% to 23%) in Mexico and Brazil over the previous four decades. In the USA and UK, it increased slightly over the last two decades, maintaining levels above 50%.
Evidence reviewed in the Series shows that diets high in UPFs are linked to overeating, poor nutritional quality (too much sugar and unhealthy fats, and too little fibre and protein) and higher exposure to harmful chemicals and additives. Additionally, a systematic review conducted for the Series, encompassing 104 long-term studies, found 92 reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases, with meta-analyses showing significant associations for 12 health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, and early death from all causes.
The Series authors acknowledge valid scientific critiques of Nova and UPFs - such as lack of long-term clinical and community trials, an emerging understanding of mechanisms, and the existence of subgroups with different nutritional values - as key areas for future research. However, they argue future research must not delay immediate and decisive public health action justified by the current evidence. Professor Mathilde Touvier, French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm), France, says, “While healthy debate about UPFs within the scientific community is welcomed, this should be distinguished from attempts by vested interests to undermine the current evidence. The growing body of research suggests diets high in ultra-processed foods are harming health globally and justifies the need for policy action.”
Policies to target UPFs while improving access to healthy alternatives
The second paper in the Series outlines coordinated policies to regulate and reduce UPF production, marketing, and consumption, to hold large companies accountable for their role in promoting unhealthy diets.
The paper sets out how improving diets worldwide requires specific UPF policies to complement existing legislation to reduce high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) content in foods.
Professor Barry Popkin, University of North Carolina, US, says “We call for including ingredients that are markers of UPFs (eg, colours, flavours, and sweeteners) in front-of-package labels, alongside excessive saturated fat, sugar, and salt, to prevent unhealthy ingredient substitutions, and more effective regulation.” The authors propose stronger marketing restrictions - especially for adverts directed at children, on digital media, and at the brand level - as well as banning UPFs in public institutions such as schools and hospitals and placing limits on UPFs sales and shelve space in supermarkets. One success story is Brazil’s national school feeding program which has eliminated most UPFs and will require 90% of the food to be fresh or minimally processed food by 2026.
Authors emphasise that alongside regulating UPFs, policies must expand access to fresh foods. This could be achieved by taxing selected UPFs to fund fresh food subsidies for low-income households.
Professor Marion Nestle, New York University, US, says, “Improving diets worldwide requires policies tailored to each country’s unique situation and how entrenched UPFs have become in people’s daily eating habits. While priorities may differ, urgent action is needed everywhere to regulate ultra-processed foods alongside existing efforts to reduce high fat, salt, and sugar content”.
Associate Professor Gyorgy Scrinis, University of Melbourne, Australia, adds, “Importantly, policies must ensure that fresh and minimally processed foods are accessible and affordable - not just for those with time to cook, but for busy families and individuals who rely on convenient options. Only by combining stricter regulation on poor quality food products with realistic support for more nutritious choices can we truly promote better diets for all.”
A coordinated global response to combat UPF companies' political playbook The third and final paper in the Series explains how global corporations, not individual choices, are driving the rise of UPFs, and that a global health response to this challenge is urgent and feasible.
Authors highlight how UPF companies use cheap ingredients and industrial methods to cut costs, paired with aggressive marketing and appealing designs to boost consumption.
With global annual sales of $1.9 trillion, UPFs are the most profitable food sector. UPF manufacturers alone account for over half of $2.9 trillion in shareholder payouts by all publicly listed food companies since 1962. These profits fuel growing corporate power in food systems, by resourcing UPF companies to expand production, marketing, and political influence, thereby reshaping diets worldwide.
The Series reveals how UPF companies employ sophisticated political tactics to protect profits - blocking regulations, shaping scientific debates, and influencing public opinion. They coordinate hundreds of interest groups worldwide, lobby politicians, make political donations and engage in litigation to delay policies (paper 3, table 1 and figure 2).
Professor Simon Barquera, the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, Mexico, says “Powerful corporations – not individuals’ choices – are behind the global rise of ultra-processed foods. Through interest groups, these corporations often position themselves as part of the solution, but their actions tell a different story – one focused on protecting profits and resisting effective regulation.”
The authors call for a coordinated global public health response to protect policymaking from industry interference, end industry ties with health professionals and organisations, and build a global UPFs action advocacy network.
Professor Karen Hoffman, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, adds “Just as we confronted the tobacco industry decades ago, we need a bold, coordinated global response now to curb the overproportionate power of UPF corporations and build food systems that prioritise people’s health and wellbeing.”
The Series says tackling UPFs must involve a different vision for our food systems – to create systems that support diverse local food producers, preserve cultural food traditions, promote gender equity, and ensure the economic benefits of food production flow back to communities rather than shareholders.
Dr Phillip Baker, continues, “We are currently living in a world where our food options are increasingly dominated by UPFs, contributing to rising global levels of obesity, diabetes and mental ill-health. Our Series highlights that a different path is possible - one where governments regulate effectively, communities mobilise, and healthier diets are accessible and affordable for all.”
Expert Reaction
These comments have been collated by the Science Media Centre to provide a variety of expert perspectives on this issue. Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Views expressed are the personal opinions of the experts named. They do not represent the views of the SMC or any other organisation unless specifically stated.
Professor Caryn Zinn, NZ registered dietician, AUT University
"The Lancet Series provides a timely and much-needed call for decisive global action to address the rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Large multinational corporations have undeniably driven the expansion of UPFs through aggressive marketing, and the deliberate engineering of hyper-palatable products. At the same time, consumer demand, shaped by these addictive formulations, continues to fuel the cycle. Food and sugar addiction is a far bigger issue than many researchers acknowledge, and it has contributed to the rapid growth of UPFs in everyday diets.
"In New Zealand, UPFs now contribute around half of total daily energy intake for children aged 15 years, with 85% of our supermarket shelves filled with these products, illustrating how deeply entrenched they have become and why coordinated policy action is urgently required.
"While the Lancet Series recognises key criticisms of the NOVA system (Brazilian system that classifies food according to level of processing) and its limitations, particularly around misclassification of some foods, it reinforces that the evidence is already strong enough to justify immediate public health intervention. At AUT, we have taken these critiques forward by developing a system that builds and improves on NOVA. It’s called CHIPS (Combining Health, Intuition, Processing & Science) and it’s a three-tiered framework that considers food processing alongside health benefit, and realistic, culturally grounded eating patterns. We are currently applying CHIPS using an AI-supported tool to understand its potential to shift behaviour in real-world settings. As global policy momentum builds, frameworks like CHIPS can help provide practical, accessible guidance for individuals and communities, complementing the broader structural actions needed to curb UPF consumption."
Associate Professor Kathryn Bradbury, School of Population Health, University of Auckland
"The Nova system was developed in Brazil and within this system foods are categorised as ultra-processed based on the presence and assessed purpose of industrial additives. Many of the ultra-processed food products are what we think of as typical ‘junk food’ – potato chips and other savoury snacks, biscuits, soft drinks, and confectionary. However, some food products, including yoghurts and mass-produced packaged bread are classified as ultra-processed, even though they are often relatively low in fat, sugar, and energy, and wholegrain bread is high in fibre. Mass-produced packaged bread is a food staple in New Zealand and several other ‘Western’ countries – contributing about a third of our energy intake. Thus, it is difficult to see how including recommendations to avoid ultra-processed food would be useful or warranted in these settings.
"This Lancet Series does not represent the broad range of views held by public health nutrition scientists on the ultra-processed food concept, many of whom question the relevance, usefulness, and value of using this concept in public health policy, particularly in other countries and settings.
"In New Zealand, as in many other countries, we lack effective food and nutrition policies to improve population health. What is holding us back from making real progress on improving population diets is not that we need to apply a new concept to help us define what ‘junk food’ is, but that we need political will and action to introduce policies that will improve the health of our population. These policies include a mandatory restriction of marketing of unhealthy food to children, elimination of industrial-trans fat from our food supply, a tax on sugary drinks, mandatory limits on the salt content of packaged foods, and mandatory health-star rating label on all food products. None of these policies rely on the ultra-processed food concept. We also do need stronger safeguards to prevent food industry from influencing policy design and evaluation; this should not be limited to just safeguards against companies that manufacture a high proportion of ultra-processed foods. Minimally processed foods such as red meat and butter increase the risk of bowel cancer and raise blood lipid levels, respectively, and their production generates large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Policy development should be protected from the influence of food industry more broadly."
Dr Kelly Garton, Senior Research Fellow, Dept of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, University of Auckland
"My research investigates the political economy of the ultra-processed food ‘system’ here in Aotearoa, to try to determine why ultra-processed foods (UPF) are so dominant, despite our general collective knowledge that these food and drinks aren’t very good for us. We know that these products are cheap to buy, and highly convenient—which influence what we eat given our high and increasing cost of living, and people working hard to make ends meet—but they are also aggressively marketed to us, most often in ways and settings we cannot control.
"International trade is also bringing more UPF and their inputs into the NZ food system each year. My latest project* tracked trade in food and food ingredients into and out of NZ over the last 35 years. I’ve seen that the proportion of our food and drink imports that are ultra-processed has increased substantially over this period, from about 9% in 1990 to about 22% in 2023, with particular growth (in volume per capita) in sweetened drinks and the sweeteners used to produce these and other UPF in NZ.
"New Zealand does not have the strong regulations that are needed to curb the supply and demand for UPF and create healthier food environments. We need comprehensive and mandatory restriction on the marketing of UPF and their brands, and we need fiscal policies that help shift affordability toward healthier options. The policy packages implemented by many countries in Latin America are a great example. For instance, Mexico was one of the first countries to tax sugary drinks, and its success has inspired more than 50 countries worldwide to follow suit. Mexico also has mandatory warning labels on foods high in sugar, salt, fats, calories, and/or containing artificial sweeteners; the country has strong restrictions on how these products can be marketed, and has banned the sale and distribution of UPF in schools as of this year."
* Garton K, da Cruz G & Swinburn B. Research article under review, presented at the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) HOPE Meeting, Yokohama, Japan, 11/03/2025