Reducing Ultra-Processed Foods Is Only Part of the Solution
Policies that discourage ultra-processed foods can help improve diets. But researchers argue those efforts are likely to have a greater and more equitable impact when paired with strategies that make minimally processed foods easier to access.
Measures such as sugary drink taxes, front-of-package warning labels, marketing restrictions, and school food standards can reduce purchases and consumption of many of the UPFs they cover. These approaches are important, but they focus primarily on restricting unhealthy products rather than making healthier foods easier to access.
The researchers argue that what people eat is also shaped by the food environment around them. Price, availability, convenience, marketing, time, and access to food preparation all influence what people are realistically able to eat. If healthier options remain harder to find, afford or prepare, some people may have few practical alternatives.
That is why the authors recommend pairing efforts to reduce UPF consumption with strategies that make minimally processed foods more available, affordable, and appealing. These can include healthy food subsidies, stronger food standards in schools and other public institutions, programs that improve access to healthier foods, and public education and communication efforts.
What this framework could mean for U.S. policy:
- Schools: Pairing efforts to limit UPFs in school meals with investments in kitchen equipment, staffing, and culinary training so schools can prepare and serve more minimally processed foods. The review notes that stronger food standards should be supported by adequate infrastructure and workforce training.
- Affordability: Pairing policies that make unhealthy products more expensive with subsidies or other investments that make minimally processed foods more affordable and accessible, particularly for lower-income households.
- Labels, marketing and access: Combining front-of-package warning labels with restrictions on unhealthy food marketing and sales in public institutions, along with broader efforts to improve access to healthier foods. The authors argue that coordinated approaches can strengthen the overall impact of these policies.
The broader point is that improving diets requires more than telling people what to avoid. It also means creating conditions that make healthier choices more realistic, accessible, and affordable.
The takeaway: Reducing UPF consumption matters. But lasting, equitable improvements in diet also require making minimally processed foods easier for people to access, afford, and choose.
