Public Awareness and Support for Governmental Intervention to Address Harms Associated With Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods: A National Survey, United States, June 2025

Jeff Niederdeppe; Colleen L Barry; Sarah E Gollust; Norman Porticella; Kelly D Brownell; Ashley N Gearhardt

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2026.308498

. 2026 Jul;116(7):960–970. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2026.308498

Public Awareness and Support for Governmental Intervention to Address Harms Associated With Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods: A National Survey, United States, June 2025

Jeff Niederdeppe ^1,^✉, Colleen L Barry ¹, Sarah E Gollust ¹, Norman Porticella ¹, Kelly D Brownell ¹, Ashley N Gearhardt ¹

PMCID: PMC13277481 PMID: 42233207

Abstract

Objectives. To assess public understanding of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), support for governmental intervention to address UPF harms, and potential differences in understanding and support by political party.

Methods. We partnered with YouGov on a web-based survey of 2000 adults weighted to be nationally representative in the United States to assess awareness and confidence in explaining UPFs, beliefs about UPF harms and UPF companies, responsibility for addressing UPF harms, and support for governmental actions to regulate UPF products and companies. We stratified results by political party.

Results. Many Americans have heard of UPFs (58.1%), but fewer are confident in their understanding (32.8%). There is widespread recognition of UPF harms to physical health but less awareness of mental health harms. There is broad support among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans for several public policy and legal strategies designed to reduce UPF consumption.

Conclusions. There is robust and bipartisan support for addressing UPF harms through many specific legal and policy interventions. (Am J Public Health. 2026;116(7):960–970. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2026.308498)

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs)—“formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes”^1(p937)—now constitute a majority of calories consumed in the United States.¹^,² A growing body of evidence links high UPF consumption to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, depression, cognitive decline, and premature mortality.³ Concerns are also emerging about their potential to promote addictive intake patterns through product engineering that heightens reward and craving.⁴

The dominance of UPFs in the US diet reflects deliberate corporate product design and marketing strategies. Companies deploy processing technologies that enhance sensory appeal and accelerate absorption, and invest heavily in child-focused marketing, product placement, and political lobbying.⁵ This mirrors tactics used by tobacco and alcohol industries to normalize daily use, shape perception of harm, and delay regulation and litigation. The public health stakes are clear: these products are now major drivers of chronic disease and diminished well-being.³

Policymakers across the ideological spectrum have begun to respond. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has prioritized diet-related chronic disease prevention, and hundreds of state bills have been introduced to address UPFs or related harms.⁶ State attorneys general have launched investigations into company practices.⁷ In October 2025, California became the first state to target UPFs for restrictions in school meals,⁸ and in July 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a Request for Information to inform regulatory definitions of UPFs.⁹ Meanwhile, the HHS secretary and federally commissioned Make America Healthy Again report characterized UPFs as key contributors to the nation’s metabolic and mental health crisis,⁶ and the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans newly recommends that people “limit highly processed foods.”^10(p4)

Despite this growing activity, we know little about what the American public believes or wants regarding UPFs. Historical precedent underscores the importance of public opinion: in tobacco control, shifts in public perception preceded—and enabled—successful litigation and regulatory reform.¹¹ While several European polls have examined UPF awareness and concern,¹²^,¹³ US polling remains extremely limited. A recent survey found that most people in the United States view processed foods as unhealthy but purchase them anyway, suggesting ambivalence rather than apathy.¹⁴

A more detailed understanding of where people in the United States stand is essential for guiding effective and politically feasible public health action. We fielded a US national opinion survey in June 2025 to better understand public awareness of UPFs, beliefs about UPF harms and UPF companies, perceived responsibility for addressing UPF harms, and support for governmental actions to regulate UPF products and companies. We analyzed overall patterns and gauged whether beliefs about UPFs differ by partisan identification.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based survey via YouGov Panel from June 6 to 16, 2025, among a national sample of 2000 adults aged 18 years or older and living in the United States. YouGov maintains a panel of Americans who periodically agree to take part in surveys. Adults living in the United States who have internet access are eligible to join the panel. Panel members are recruited through advertising and partnerships with a variety of websites. In exchange for taking surveys, respondents receive points that can be exchanged for credit at various vendors.

Study participants provided informed consent and then proceeded to the survey. We first assessed unaided awareness of UPFs and confidence in explaining UPFs (see Appendix A, available as a supplement to the online version of this article at https://ajph.org, for survey wording for all analyzed items). Next, we provided respondents with a short definition of UPFs (available throughout the rest of the survey). Respondents then answered blocks of questions about their support for various public policy and litigation strategies, beliefs about UPF harms and UPF companies, perceptions of blame and responsibility toward various actors, and demographic items that were not part of the previously collected panel profile variables provided by YouGov. Survey items were randomized within blocks. In the absence of validated measures on UPF-related awareness beliefs, we wrote survey items informed by studies in other related domains (e.g., sugary drinks and obesity).¹⁵^–¹⁸ The final sample (n = 2000; chosen to provide a margin of error of ± 2.4 percentage points for the overall sample) was weighted to be nationally representative of US adults (see Table A, available as a supplement to the online version of this article at https://ajph.org, for sample demographics).

Measures

To gauge awareness of UPFs, we asked, “Have you ever heard of ultraprocessed foods?” (dichotomized to 1 = yes vs 0 = no or unsure). Those who answered “yes” or “unsure” were then asked, “If you were asked to do so, how confident are you that you could explain to someone else what ultraprocessed foods are?” (1 = not at all confident to 5 = extremely confident). We dichotomized responses to 1 = somewhat, very, or extremely confident versus 0 = not at all or a little confident.

Informed by previous work,¹⁵^–¹⁸ we measured perceived responsibility for addressing the poor quality of American diets as follows: “Please indicate how much responsibility you think each of the following groups has for addressing the poor quality of American diets: [e.g., ultraprocessed food companies; individuals and their own dietary choices; the US government]” (1 = none at all to 5 = a great deal). We dichotomized these responses to 1 = a lot or a great deal versus 0 = a moderate amount, a little, or none.

To measure beliefs about UPF harms and impact (14 items), respondents were asked, “Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: [e.g., Ultraprocessed foods are addictive]” (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). These items included both evidence-based harms and false claims made in public discourse. We dichotomized responses to 1 = agree or strongly agree versus 0 = neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree. We asked a parallel set of questions (13 items) with the same basic prompt and response categories to gauge a range of beliefs about UPF companies.

Also informed by previous work,¹⁵^–¹⁸ we asked about the harms of UPFs relative to a variety of other products as follows: “In general, how harmful do you feel each of the following is to the health of people who use or consume them? [e.g., cigarettes; alcoholic beverages; ultraprocessed foods]” (1 = not at all harmful to 5 = extremely harmful). We dichotomized these responses to 1 = very or extremely harmful versus 0 = somewhat, a little, or not at all harmful.

To measure support for public policy and litigation strategies (14 items), respondents were asked, “To what extent do you support or oppose the following policies: [e.g., Banning artificial food dyes (coloring) from all products]?” (1 = strongly oppose; 5 = strongly support). These items included strategies that have been discussed in the context of UPFs and other product categories. We dichotomized responses to 1 = support or strongly support versus 0 = neutral, oppose, or strongly oppose.

Political party identification was measured by asking, “Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or another party?” We report results both overall (in the Appendix and text where relevant) and stratified by political party: Democrats (n = 666), Independents (n = 542), and Republicans (n = 583).

Data Analysis

We assessed the survey-weighted proportion of dichotomized item responses and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around these estimates overall and by political party. Figures show results stratified by political party, while Table B (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at https://ajph.org) provides overall and party-specific percentage and 95% CI estimates for all variables reported in the article. We ran logistic regressions to predict agreement or support for each item by political party; we report on differences between partisan groups only when political party was a significant (P < .05) predictor of awareness or support (group differences are noted in Table B). We conducted analyses using weighted data in SPSS version 29.¹⁹

RESULTS

More than half (58.1%; 95% CI = 56.0, 60.3) of respondents had heard of UPFs, but only 32.8% (95% CI = 30.8, 34.0) felt at least somewhat confident they could explain UPFs to someone else. Results were similar by political party.

Figure 1 presents sample percentages for awareness of UPFs, confidence in explaining them, and perceived responsibility for addressing UPF harms, stratified by political party. Respondents across political groups perceived individuals and their own dietary choices and parents of unhealthy children as the groups with the highest level of responsibility for addressing UPF harms (all > 63%), with Republicans and Independents ascribing more responsibility to both groups than Democrats. UPF companies were the next highest for all political groups (all > 52%), with Democrats assigning greater responsibility than Republicans or Independents. Respondents overall rated the US government at roughly the same level of responsibility as fast food and soda companies, with Democrats more likely to assign responsibility to federal actors than Republicans and Independents. State and local governments and schools were perceived as having the lowest responsibility.

Figure 2 presents sample percentages for beliefs about the harms of UPFs, stratified by political party. Across partisan identities, Americans widely agreed that UPFs are a major cause of obesity, are addictive, and cause type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (each > 60% agreement). Fewer Americans agreed that UPFs cause vulnerability to mental health issues including depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (each < 40%). Very few respondents agreed that the harms are overblown or that UPFs are healthy (both < 20%). Partisan differences emerged for agreement with several items. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to agree that UPFs are not what God intended, are a major cause of cancer, and cause vulnerability to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism. Democrats were more likely than Independents to agree that UPFs are addictive, that we do not know enough about UPF harms, and that effects are overblown. Democrats were also more likely than both Republicans and Independents to agree that UPFs are bad for the environment and that they are healthy.

Additional analyses (Figure A, available as a supplement to the online version of this article at https://ajph.org) compared beliefs about the harms of UPFs to beliefs about the harms of other products (e.g., illegal opioid drugs, cigarettes, cannabis). More than half of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans (each between 53.8% and 55.5%) thought that UPFs were very or extremely harmful. Across all political groups, perceived harms were lower than opioids, cigarettes, and e-cigarettes but similar to alcohol and higher than sugar-sweetened beverages, fast foods, and cannabis.

Figure 3 presents sample percentages for beliefs about UPF companies, stratified by political party. Respondents expressed broad cynicism around the motives and behaviors of the UPF industry, with greater than 60% overall agreeing with items related to profit motives and designing or marketing UPFs for overconsumption and addiction among children. With few exceptions, beliefs were similar by political party. Exceptions pertained to beliefs about targeting marginalized populations (Democrats agreed more than Independents or Republicans), UPF company rights to market their products (Republicans agreed more than Democrats), and 3 items where Independents but not Republicans differed from Democrats (tobacco industry strategies, testing chemicals for safety, and trust to make food products healthy).

Figure 4 presents sample percentages for support of governmental intervention to address the harms of UPFs, stratified by political party. Respondents expressed broad support for a variety of public policies with potential to reduce UPF consumption. Support was highest (83.1%; 95% CI = 81.4, 84.7) for requiring the government to test laboratory-made chemicals for safety before use in food products, but more than 64% of respondents overall also supported national education campaigns, restricting UPF advertising to children, banning dyes, and warning labels on products and ads. While modest differences by political party (8–15 percentage point differences) were found for 10 of 14 items (e.g., taxes, restricting placement at grocery stores, bringing lawsuits against UPF companies, requiring payments to a healthy food advertising fund), rank ordering of policy support was strikingly consistent across partisan groups. It is also notable (Figure B, available as a supplement to the online version of this article at https://ajph.org) that for almost all items, more respondents answered “neutral” than “oppose” (e.g., 30% of respondents were neutral about bringing lawsuits against UPF companies), suggesting greater ambivalence than opposition.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this survey provides the first comprehensive assessment of how people in the United States understand and perceive UPFs and their regulation. More than half of adults had heard of UPFs, yet only one third felt confident explaining what UPFs are—revealing that public exposure to the term is expanding faster than comprehension. This underscores the need to build consensus around a clear and scientifically supported definition of UPFs for use in both (1) US regulatory policy (at both federal and state levels) and (2) health communication campaigns to increase public understanding and agency in addressing UPF harms.

Despite this limited understanding, Americans broadly recognize UPFs as harmful and assign responsibility for addressing their harms across individuals, parents, UPF companies, and (to a lesser extent) government. That distribution of perceived responsibility suggests the need for messaging that emphasizes the ways that the food environment, including the production and marketing of products that are engineered to promote craving and addiction, may undermine personal choice and agency and, thus, increase recognition of a need for more robust governmental intervention. The public appears to understand that dietary patterns are shaped not solely by individual willpower but by corporate and regulatory forces. As history with tobacco and other health threats demonstrates, voluntary reform by industry is rare; robust regulation is typically required to align profit incentives with public health.¹¹

Perceived harms of UPFs were widespread and substantial. People in the United States rated them as less harmful than opioids or cigarettes but more harmful than cannabis and roughly equivalent to alcohol. This finding underscores that UPFs have entered public consciousness as a major health hazard—surpassing the perceived risk of individual product categories such as soda or fast food, which are themselves subsets of UPFs. Support for addressing UPFs as a category appears higher than for previous, more narrowly defined efforts such as soda regulation,¹⁵ indicating that the public may be more receptive now to broader policy approaches. The consensus contrasts sharply with previous debates over obesity prevention and soda taxes, which were politically polarizing and framed as government overreach.¹⁵^–¹⁷

Bipartisan Alignment and Political Shifts

Perhaps the most striking finding is the degree of bipartisan convergence. Republicans and Democrats expressed similar levels of concern about UPF harms and similar patterns of support for specific government regulations. Earlier national polls consistently found that conservatives or Republicans were less supportive of obesity-related or soda-tax policies, often citing concerns about personal freedom or paternalism.¹⁵^,¹⁸ Our results indicate that UPFs are breaking through this ideological barrier.

Recent polling among parents provides corroborating evidence. A 2025 KFF and Washington Post survey found that more than 80% of US parents, regardless of party affiliation, support stronger government regulation of dyes, additives, and highly processed foods—mirroring the levels of support observed in the current study.²⁰

This alignment represents a pivotal political shift. Recent US governmental reports have reframed chronic disease as a bipartisan issue rooted in industrial food practices rather than individual failure.⁶ Our data suggest that message is resonating. Republicans—long skeptical of nutrition regulation—now exhibit comparable, and in a few cases greater, concern about UPFs than Democrats. Such cross-party agreement is exceedingly rare in contemporary public health and may create a durable foundation for policy change.

Addiction and Industry Influence

Nearly 70% of Americans believe UPFs are addictive—a level of agreement that mirrors growing recognition among scientists, policymakers, and former FDA officials.⁴ This public perception aligns with emerging evidence that UPFs can produce addiction-like patterns of intake and neurobiological adaptations similar to those seen with nicotine and alcohol.⁵ The convergence of scientific and public understanding underscores a broader systems problem: the same multinational conglomerates that built global empires on tobacco and alcohol have expanded into UPFs, using shared expertise in product engineering, branding, and political influence to sustain consumption and deflect accountability.²¹^,²² Overlapping corporate ownership and coordinated lobbying link these sectors, all of which rely on the commercialization of addictive, high-margin products.²¹^,²² Beliefs about addiction and child-targeted marketing were among the most strongly endorsed items in our survey, reflecting widespread recognition of these corporate tactics. Recognizing these cross-industry linkages highlights the need for regulatory strategies that transcend food policy and address the wider addiction-industrial complex.

Communication Opportunities

While most respondents acknowledged the physical harms of UPFs, far fewer recognized their connection to mental health or environmental sustainability. This represents both a gap and an opportunity. Emerging scientific evidence demonstrates consistent associations between higher UPF consumption and elevated risk of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress,³ and there is emerging evidence on the broad environmental toll of UPF production and consumption.²³ Communicating the mental health consequences of UPF exposure could strengthen engagement across ideological lines, as concern for children’s mental health ranks among the most unifying issues in the United States today.²⁰ Communicating the environmental consequences of producing and consuming UPFs, while potentially more politically divisive, may engage a different and larger set of issue interests.

Litigation, Regulation, and Advocacy

Study results reveal broad skepticism toward the UPF industry and high levels of support for specific policy and legal solutions that go beyond personal action. A large majority of people in the United States favor government testing of chemicals before they are added to food, mandatory reformulation to reduce sugar and salt, restrictions on child-directed advertising, and national education campaigns. Notably, public support is not limited to educational approaches: a majority also favors litigation or accountability measures targeting UPF companies.

These findings expose a critical gap between public expectations and current regulations. Although 83% of respondents support federal testing of food chemicals for safety, the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) exemption allows companies to self-certify new ingredients without agency review.²⁴ Polling data from other sources similarly reveal that while most people in the United States strongly support the government’s role in ensuring the safety of the food supply, public confidence in that supply has reached an all-time low amid perceptions that profits are being prioritized over safety.²⁵ Closing the GRAS loophole would not only align regulation with public expectations but also represent a tangible step toward rebuilding trust in food governance.

Litigation has historically played a pivotal role in advancing public health—most notably in tobacco control, where coordinated lawsuits by state attorneys general led to landmark settlements, industry disclosures, and major regulatory reforms.¹¹^,²¹ Until recently, public support for such legal action in the food domain appeared minimal. For example, a 2003 Health Pulse of America poll found that only 6% of respondents believed parents should be able to sue major snack companies for contributing to childhood obesity, and 84% felt the government should pass laws to prevent such suits.²⁶ In stark contrast, our current findings reveal that 57% of Democrats, 49% of Independents, and 45% of Republicans now support state attorneys general bringing lawsuits against UPF companies for health harms caused by their products. The remaining respondents were largely neutral rather than opposed, suggesting openness to this avenue of accountability and an opportunity for additional mobilization. This shift marks a dramatic change in public sentiment over the course of 2 decades and signals growing readiness for legal strategies to hold UPF companies accountable for deceptive marketing and product engineering.

Overall, the parallels to tobacco control are striking. In both cases, widespread industry deception, targeted marketing to children, and escalating chronic disease burdens preceded decisive litigation and regulatory action.²⁷ Public opinion played a catalytic role in the success of antitobacco litigation and regulation, as rising awareness of corporate misconduct eroded the industry’s political power.¹¹ UPFs may be approaching a similar inflection point. People in the United States view the industry with suspicion and favor government intervention to ensure safety and accountability.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. First, because awareness of UPFs remains modest, some participants were evaluating new information; their responses may not yet reflect stable beliefs. Second, the order of survey items could have introduced priming effects, though policy questions were presented before attitudinal items and all items were randomized within blocks to minimize this risk. Third, in the absence of previous surveys of UPF awareness and beliefs, we were largely unable to use previously validated measures. Fourth, while the sample was weighted to match national demographics, it was drawn from a nonprobability panel. Finally, these data capture a single point in time during a rapidly changing policy environment; continued monitoring will be essential as media coverage and political discourse evolve.

Public Health Implications

From a public health perspective, these findings are both timely and encouraging. People in the United States broadly believe that UPFs are harmful and addictive and are aligned in support of a variety of potential regulations. This perspective spans the political spectrum, signaling a rare moment of alignment that public health practitioners can leverage. Importantly, these attitudes coincide with mounting scientific consensus that certain UPFs possess addictive properties⁴ and with increasing evidence that their consumption worsens both physical and mental health outcomes.³

The convergence of public belief, bipartisan support, and scientific evidence creates a critical window for policy action. Americans appear ready for stronger safeguards, ranging from additive testing to marketing restrictions. Public health communication strategies that highlight corporate engineering of addictive products and connect UPFs exposure to chronic disease, mental health, and environmental outcomes may hold strong promise. Like historical successes in reframing tobacco from a matter of personal failure to corporate manipulation,²⁸^,²⁹ a similar shift in narrative seems poised to accelerate momentum for reform around UPFs. Ongoing surveillance of public attitudes will be crucial as awareness of UPFs expands and policy debates evolve.

Ultimately, results suggest that the US public is not a barrier to progress—it may be the catalyst. With strong bipartisan concern, limited trust in industry, and high readiness for policy intervention, the conditions are ripe for transformative action to reduce the dominance of UPFs and improve public health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by a grant from the Dohmen Company Foundation.

Note. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Dohmen Company Foundation.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

J. Niederdeppe and A. N. Gearhardt have received speaking honoraria from academic organizations and health-related nonprofits. A. N. Gearhardt has received consulting fees from health-related nonprofits and a law firm and receives royalties from Oxford University Press. S. E. Gollust, K. D. Brownell, and A. N. Gearhardt have served as consultants for Dohmen Company Foundation (a funder of this study).

HUMAN PARTICIPANT PROTECTION

The project was deemed exempt from human participation review by the institutional review board at Cornell University. All respondents provided informed consent before proceeding with the survey.

See also Ultraprocessed Food, pp. 898–1029.

REFERENCES

1. Monteiro CA , Cannon G , Levy RB , et al. Ultra- processed foods: what they are and how to identify them . Public Health Nutr. 2019. ; 22 ( 5 ): 936 – 941 . 10.1017/S1368980018003762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Williams AM , Couch CA , Emmerich SD , Ogburn DF. Ultra-processed food consumption in youth and adults: United States, August 2021–August 2023 . NCHS Data Brief. 2025. ( 536 ): 1 – 11 . 10.15620/cdc/174612 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. Lane MM , Gamage E , Du S , et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses . BMJ. 2024. ; 384 : e077310 . 10.1136/bmj-2023-077310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. LaFata EM , Moran AJ , Volkow ND , Gearhardt AN. Now is the time to recognize and respond to addiction to ultra-processed foods . Nat Med. 2025. ; 31 ( 11 ): 3586 – 3587 . 10.1038/s41591-025-03858-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Gearhardt AN , Bueno NB , DiFeliceantonio AG , et al. Social, clinical, and policy implications of ultra-processed food addiction . BMJ. 2023. ; 383 : e075354 . 10.1136/bmj-2023-075354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Make America Healthy Again Commission . Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment on Childhood Chronic Disease Drivers . US Department of Health and Human Services; . May 22, 2025. . Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf . Accessed October 18, 2025. [Google Scholar]
7. Stempel J. Texas probes M&M maker Mars’ resistance to removing synthetic dyes . Reuters. July 16, 2025. . Available at: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-probes-mm-maker-mars-resistance-removing-synthetic-dyes-2025-07-16 . Accessed October 22, 2025.
8. Bendix A. California becomes the first state to phase ultraprocessed food out of school meals . NBC News. October 8, 2025. . Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/california-phase-ultraprocessed-food-school-meals-rcna236506 . Accessed October 23, 2025.
9. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of Agriculture . Request for information: ultra-processed foods . September 19, 2025. . Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda/fr-072525 . Accessed October 23, 2025.
10. US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services . Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025‒2030 . 10th ed. January 2026. . Available at: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov . Accessed April 10, 2026.
11. Brandt AM. The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. New York, NY: : Basic Books; ; 2007. . [Google Scholar]
12. Robinson E , Cummings JR , Gough T , et al. Consumer awareness, perceptions and avoidance of ultra-processed foods: a study of UK adults in 2024 . Foods. 2024. ; 13 ( 15 ): 2317 . 10.3390/foods13152317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. EIT Food . Consumer perceptions unwrapped: ultra-processed foods (UPF) . February 14, 2024. . Available at: https://www.eitfood.eu/consumer-perceptions-unwrapped-ultra-processed-foods . Accessed June 21, 2025.
14. Balagtas J , Bryant E. Consumer food insights, volume 4, issue 2 . Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability, College of Agriculture, Purdue University. March 12, 2025. . Available at: https://ag.purdue.edu/cfdas/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Report_202502.pdf . Accessed October 23, 2025.
15. Gollust SE , Barry CL , Niederdeppe J. Americans’ opinions about policies to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages . Prev Med. 2014. ; 63 : 52 – 57 . 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Wolfson JA , Gollust SE , Niederdeppe J , Barry CL. The role of parents in public views of strategies to address childhood obesity in the United States . Milbank Q. 2015. ; 93 ( 1 ): 73 – 111 . 10.1111/1468-0009.12106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Pew Research Center . Public agrees on obesity’s impact, not government’s role . November 12, 2013 . Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2013/11/12/public-agrees-on-obesitys-impact-not-governments-role . Accessed October 23, 2025.
18. Gollust SE , Niederdeppe J , Barry CL. Framing the consequences of childhood obesity to increase public support for obesity prevention policy . Am J Public Health. 2013. ; 103 ( 11 ): e96 – e102 . 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301271 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2024. .
20. Kearney A , Valdes I , Montero A , et al. KFF/the Washington Post survey of parents: polling insights on the MAHA movement. Kaiser Family Foundation . October 15, 2025. . Available at: https://www.kff.org/public-opinion/kff-the-washington-post-survey-of-parents-polling-insights-on-the-maha-movement . Accessed October 18, 2025.
21. Nguyen KH , Glantz SA , Palmer CN , Schmidt LA. Tobacco industry involvement in children’s sugary drinks market . BMJ. 2019. ; 364 : l736 . 10.1136/bmj.l736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Gearhardt AN , Brownell KD , Brandt AM. From tobacco to ultraprocessed food: how industry engineering fuels the epidemic of preventable disease . Milbank Q. 2026. ;104(1):76‒115. 10.1111/1468-0009.70066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23. Kesse-Guyot E , Allès B , Brunin J , et al. Environmental impacts along the value chain from the consumption of ultra-processed foods . Nat Sustain. 2022. ; 6 ( 2 ): 192 – 202 . 10.1038/s41893-022-01013-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24. Dragich M. GRAS-fed Americans: sick of lax regulation of food additives . Ind Law Rev Arch. 2016. ; 49 ( 2 ): 305 . 10.18060/4806.0069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25. International Food Information Council . 2025 IFIC food & health survey: a focus on food & ingredient safety . July 28, 2025. . Available at: https://ific.org/research/2025-ific-food-health-survey . Accessed October 21, 2025.
26. Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research . Stony Brook poll #2003-HLTHA: Health Pulse of America, 2003. (Version 2). Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research; 2003. 10.25940/ROPER-31097945 [DOI]
27. Brownell KD , Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? Milbank Q. 2009. ; 87 ( 1 ): 259 – 294 . 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Farrelly MC , Davis KC , Haviland ML , et al. Evidence of a dose–response relationship between “truth” antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence . Am J Public Health. 2005. ; 95 ( 3 ): 425 – 431 . 10.2105/AJPH.2004.049692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Niederdeppe J , Kellogg M , Skurka C , et al. Market-level exposure to state antismoking media campaigns and public support for tobacco control policy in the United States, 2001–2002 . Tob Control. 2017. ; 27(2) : 177 – 184 . 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053506 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib1] 1. Monteiro CA , Cannon G , Levy RB , et al. Ultra- processed foods: what they are and how to identify them . Public Health Nutr. 2019. ; 22 ( 5 ): 936 – 941 . 10.1017/S1368980018003762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib2] 2. Williams AM , Couch CA , Emmerich SD , Ogburn DF. Ultra-processed food consumption in youth and adults: United States, August 2021–August 2023 . NCHS Data Brief. 2025. ( 536 ): 1 – 11 . 10.15620/cdc/174612 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib3] 3. Lane MM , Gamage E , Du S , et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses . BMJ. 2024. ; 384 : e077310 . 10.1136/bmj-2023-077310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib4] 4. LaFata EM , Moran AJ , Volkow ND , Gearhardt AN. Now is the time to recognize and respond to addiction to ultra-processed foods . Nat Med. 2025. ; 31 ( 11 ): 3586 – 3587 . 10.1038/s41591-025-03858-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib5] 5. Gearhardt AN , Bueno NB , DiFeliceantonio AG , et al. Social, clinical, and policy implications of ultra-processed food addiction . BMJ. 2023. ; 383 : e075354 . 10.1136/bmj-2023-075354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib6] 6. Make America Healthy Again Commission . Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment on Childhood Chronic Disease Drivers . US Department of Health and Human Services; . May 22, 2025. . Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf . Accessed October 18, 2025. [Google Scholar]

[bib7] 7. Stempel J. Texas probes M&M maker Mars’ resistance to removing synthetic dyes . Reuters. July 16, 2025. . Available at: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-probes-mm-maker-mars-resistance-removing-synthetic-dyes-2025-07-16 . Accessed October 22, 2025.

[bib8] 8. Bendix A. California becomes the first state to phase ultraprocessed food out of school meals . NBC News. October 8, 2025. . Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/california-phase-ultraprocessed-food-school-meals-rcna236506 . Accessed October 23, 2025.

[bib9] 9. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of Agriculture . Request for information: ultra-processed foods . September 19, 2025. . Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda/fr-072525 . Accessed October 23, 2025.

[bib10] 10. US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services . Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025‒2030 . 10th ed. January 2026. . Available at: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov . Accessed April 10, 2026.

[bib11] 11. Brandt AM. The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. New York, NY: : Basic Books; ; 2007. . [Google Scholar]

[bib12] 12. Robinson E , Cummings JR , Gough T , et al. Consumer awareness, perceptions and avoidance of ultra-processed foods: a study of UK adults in 2024 . Foods. 2024. ; 13 ( 15 ): 2317 . 10.3390/foods13152317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib13] 13. EIT Food . Consumer perceptions unwrapped: ultra-processed foods (UPF) . February 14, 2024. . Available at: https://www.eitfood.eu/consumer-perceptions-unwrapped-ultra-processed-foods . Accessed June 21, 2025.

[bib14] 14. Balagtas J , Bryant E. Consumer food insights, volume 4, issue 2 . Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability, College of Agriculture, Purdue University. March 12, 2025. . Available at: https://ag.purdue.edu/cfdas/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Report_202502.pdf . Accessed October 23, 2025.

[bib15] 15. Gollust SE , Barry CL , Niederdeppe J. Americans’ opinions about policies to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages . Prev Med. 2014. ; 63 : 52 – 57 . 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib16] 16. Wolfson JA , Gollust SE , Niederdeppe J , Barry CL. The role of parents in public views of strategies to address childhood obesity in the United States . Milbank Q. 2015. ; 93 ( 1 ): 73 – 111 . 10.1111/1468-0009.12106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib17] 17. Pew Research Center . Public agrees on obesity’s impact, not government’s role . November 12, 2013 . Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2013/11/12/public-agrees-on-obesitys-impact-not-governments-role . Accessed October 23, 2025.

[bib18] 18. Gollust SE , Niederdeppe J , Barry CL. Framing the consequences of childhood obesity to increase public support for obesity prevention policy . Am J Public Health. 2013. ; 103 ( 11 ): e96 – e102 . 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301271 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib19] 19. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2024. .

[bib20] 20. Kearney A , Valdes I , Montero A , et al. KFF/the Washington Post survey of parents: polling insights on the MAHA movement. Kaiser Family Foundation . October 15, 2025. . Available at: https://www.kff.org/public-opinion/kff-the-washington-post-survey-of-parents-polling-insights-on-the-maha-movement . Accessed October 18, 2025.

[bib21] 21. Nguyen KH , Glantz SA , Palmer CN , Schmidt LA. Tobacco industry involvement in children’s sugary drinks market . BMJ. 2019. ; 364 : l736 . 10.1136/bmj.l736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib22] 22. Gearhardt AN , Brownell KD , Brandt AM. From tobacco to ultraprocessed food: how industry engineering fuels the epidemic of preventable disease . Milbank Q. 2026. ;104(1):76‒115. 10.1111/1468-0009.70066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib23] 23. Kesse-Guyot E , Allès B , Brunin J , et al. Environmental impacts along the value chain from the consumption of ultra-processed foods . Nat Sustain. 2022. ; 6 ( 2 ): 192 – 202 . 10.1038/s41893-022-01013-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib24] 24. Dragich M. GRAS-fed Americans: sick of lax regulation of food additives . Ind Law Rev Arch. 2016. ; 49 ( 2 ): 305 . 10.18060/4806.0069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib25] 25. International Food Information Council . 2025 IFIC food & health survey: a focus on food & ingredient safety . July 28, 2025. . Available at: https://ific.org/research/2025-ific-food-health-survey . Accessed October 21, 2025.

[bib26] 26. Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research . Stony Brook poll #2003-HLTHA: Health Pulse of America, 2003. (Version 2). Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research; 2003. 10.25940/ROPER-31097945 [DOI]

[bib27] 27. Brownell KD , Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? Milbank Q. 2009. ; 87 ( 1 ): 259 – 294 . 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib28] 28. Farrelly MC , Davis KC , Haviland ML , et al. Evidence of a dose–response relationship between “truth” antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence . Am J Public Health. 2005. ; 95 ( 3 ): 425 – 431 . 10.2105/AJPH.2004.049692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib29] 29. Niederdeppe J , Kellogg M , Skurka C , et al. Market-level exposure to state antismoking media campaigns and public support for tobacco control policy in the United States, 2001–2002 . Tob Control. 2017. ; 27(2) : 177 – 184 . 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053506 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Public Awareness and Support for Governmental Intervention to Address Harms Associated With Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods: A National Survey, United States, June 2025

Jeff Niederdeppe, PhD

Colleen L Barry, PhD, MPP

Sarah E Gollust, PhD

Norman Porticella, PhD

Kelly D Brownell, PhD

Ashley N Gearhardt, PhD

Abstract