Health experts are renewing pressure on governments to rein in ultra-processed foods (UPFs), warning that the global surge in consumption is pushing populations toward higher rates of chronic illness. The call comes as a group of international researchers presented new findings in a three-paper series published in The Lancet, arguing that regulatory action can no longer be delayed.
The debate over UPFs has intensified in recent years, with critics questioning how the term is defined and whether the Nova classification system—developed by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro—captures the complexity of processed food. Monteiro, who led the first paper, and his co-authors said they welcomed “valid scientific criticisms,” but emphasized that the mounting evidence of harm should spur immediate policy intervention.
The researchers examined 104 previously published studies, many of which linked diets rich in UPFs to a higher likelihood of developing obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, and premature death. Although most of the existing research is observational and cannot confirm direct causation, the team laid out several potential pathways, including the higher calorie density of UPFs, the presence of additives, and the tendency of these softer foods to be consumed more quickly.
Another analysis in the series highlighted how UPF consumption has expanded rapidly, especially in wealthier countries where such products already account for more than half of all calories consumed in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The authors tied this trend to decades of aggressive marketing and global expansion by major corporations.
Only a small number of multinational manufacturers dominate the UPF landscape. According to the researchers, eight companies—Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Danone, Fomento Económico Mexicano, Mondelez, and Kraft Heinz—held 42 percent of all UPF sector assets in 2021, a market valued at $1.5 trillion.
The third paper argued that these firms have reshaped dietary habits worldwide by offering products made with inexpensive ingredients and industrial processing methods, then intensifying sales through targeted advertising. Many of these marketing campaigns, researchers said, are directed at children.
Phillip Baker of the University of Sydney, lead author of the second paper, said the industry has also sought to undermine scientific consensus. He accused UPF producers of “targeting the scientists, and the science, attempting to manufacture scientific doubt.”
Co-author Chris van Tulleken, known for his bestselling book Ultra-Processed People, echoed that concern. “We see tobacco industry tactics playing out this morning, in fact, while we’re on this call,” he said during an online press briefing.
The researchers urged governments to respond with measures similar to those used for tobacco and sugary drinks: front-of-package warnings, marketing limits—particularly for promotions aimed at young audiences—and taxes on select UPFs. They suggested directing revenue toward making fresh, minimally processed foods more accessible for low-income families.
Questions remain over how to classify healthier UPF-like products, such as plant-based milks, certain breads, and minimally altered canned vegetables, which Nova currently places in the same category as more heavily engineered food items. The team acknowledged these concerns and called for studies that can better separate nutrient issues—such as excess fat, sugar, or salt—from the specific effects of ultra-processing itself.
Hilda Mulrooney, a Kingston University London nutritionist not involved in the project, said the published papers make a strong argument for immediate attention. While she noted the authors’ enthusiasm for the Nova system, she said the health implications of UPFs should not be ignored. “Given the disproportionate risks of chronic disease to the most disadvantaged groups and the costs of a poor diet to individuals, healthcare systems and finances, it is beyond time to act” on UPFs, she said.
