logo
Ultraprocessed foods make up to 70% of the US food supply. How to reduce your intake

Ultraprocessed foods make up to 70% of the US food supply. How to reduce your intake

CNN26-02-2025

(CNN) — By now, many people have heard that a diet packed with ultraprocessed foods is not good for us. They have been linked to a host of ills, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, cognitive decline and stroke — they even appear to increase our chance of early death.
Ultraprocessed foods, according to the NOVA Food Classification system, are food products made with ingredients you wouldn't normally find in a supermarket or your kitchen (such as certain individual nutrients, flavor enhancers, colors, additives, stabilizers); they might also be made using industrial manufacturing processes (such as extrusion, molding and preprocessing) not available to the home chef.
But anyone who has ever munched on a bag of cheese puffs, heated a frozen pizza for dinner, packed cookies in their kid's lunch bag or downed a refreshing soda knows these foods can be tasty and convenient. They are also often cheaper than making a dish from scratch, hard to resist (thanks to hyper-palatability formulations) and even harder to avoid: Up to 70% of the US food supply is made up of ultraprocessed foods.
Yet many questions remain: Are they all bad? And exactly what can make them unhealthy. That's why researchers are asking whether some of those chemicals, additives and flavorings are somehow harmful? Or do some of these ingredients interact with our bodies through our microbiome or our immune system, unleashing downstream health effects that we don't yet understand? Or do ultraprocessed foods cause us to gain weight, which in turn sets us up for conditions that are associated with obesity, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease?
Researchers like Dr. Kevin Hall, a section chief at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), are trying to find out.
Hall and his team authored a groundbreaking study published in 2019 that found people on an ultraprocessed diet ate on average 500 more calories a day than people on a similar but minimally processed diet (matched for calories offered, sugar, fat, fiber and macronutrients).
Now, Hall and his team are conducting a new trial to try to understand the mechanisms driving people to overconsume calories. He has two theories.
'One is their energy density — so how many calories you're getting in each gram of food you're eating,' CNN Medical Correspondent Meg Tirrell told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently on the Chasing Life podcast. Tirrell visited Hall's lab to meet one of the participants of his new trial, which (like the first trial) involves living at the NIH for about four weeks and eating diets made up of differently processed foods.
'It so happens that ultraprocessed foods are much more energy-dense than minimally processed foods,' Tirrell said. 'And (Hall) says, really, that's because they take a lot of the water out of them so that they don't rot. They're more shelf stable.
'And then the other thing (Hall's) hypothesizing is their hyper-palatability, or we've heard the term the 'bliss point.' So, it's this combination of salt, sugar, fat and carbs in just the right levels that make us not want to stop eating foods.'
Hall's new trial is studying 36 people, for one month each, cycling them through four diets. 'One is minimally processed; one is ultraprocessed — very similar to the first trial: high hyper-palatability, high energy-dense,' Tirrell explained. 'And then two other diets … they're ultraprocessed, but they vary how hyper-palatable they are and how energy-dense they are.
'And what (Hall's) trying to see is — can you eat a diet that's made up mostly of ultraprocessed foods, but that doesn't drive overeating, and perhaps all of the other health effects of that, if it's less energy-dense or if it's less hyper-palatable?'
Not everyone views ultraprocessed foods as problematic.
'Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities,' Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy at the Consumer Brands Association, said in an emailed statement. CBA is the trade group that represents the US manufacturers of consumer packaged goods, including food and beverages.
'Companies adhere to the rigorous evidence-based safety standards established by the FDA to deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day,' Gallo said. She also noted there is currently no agreed-upon scientific definition of ultraprocessed foods.
The chemistry of hyper-palatability
Dr. Tera Fazzino, an associate professor of psychology and the associate director of the Cofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research and Treatment at the University of Kansas, knows a thing or two about ultraprocessed foods and hyper-palatability. She developed a system to measure the hyper-palatability of different foods. She also collaborated with Hall and two of his NIH colleagues on a 2023 study that found hyper-palatable foods, energy-dense foods and eating rate are all linked to more calories being consumed on four different diets.
'Hyper-palatable foods contain combinations of palatability-related nutrients — so, fat, sugar, sodium and starchy carbohydrates — at thresholds that aren't typically found together in nature,' she explained.
Fazzino said hyper-palatable foods activate our brain's opioid receptors and our dopamine reward neurocircuitry, which leads us to keep eating and seek out more.
'The problem with hyper-palatable foods is, due to their nutrient combinations, they are particularly strong reinforcers,' she said. 'They can be acutely rewarding to consume in the moment. And they can also garner a really strong motivational drive for us to continue seeking out and consuming these foods.'
Fazzino's research found hyper-palatable foods fall into three categories. 'One group has elevated fat and sodium; a second group has elevated fat and sugar. And then the third group has elevated starchy carbohydrates and sodium,' she said.
'The fat and sodium hyper-palatable foods are a lot of our meal-based items, things that we eat on the regular,' she explained. 'That would be meat-based dishes, mixed dishes like meat and mashed potatoes, and things like that.
'The fat and sugar (group) really are the sweets, the desserts,' she said. 'The starchy carbohydrate and sodium hyper-palatable foods are a lot of our snacks. So, things that maybe even might not seem so problematic or so obvious as maybe (chips), like pretzels (and) most US-produced crackers.'
Fazzino said our bodies haven't evolved to handle these foods. Whole foods found in nature 'activate our brain reward neuro-circuitry and that's a survival process,' she said. 'Eating is fundamentally … a reinforcement-based process, and it needs to be enjoyable to make sure that we survive.'
Hyper-palatable foods hijack that process because they are engineered to hit the bliss point with their magic combination of fat, sugar, sodium and starchy carbohydrates, she said.
'That is creating almost like this euphoric experience that doesn't typically come from whole foods,' she explained. 'And the problem with that is that that has underlying neurobiological impacts. It's excessively activating our brain reward neural circuitry that already happens with whole foods.'
That's why it's all too easy to overindulge in those foods, she said. 'They can cause us to overeat in the moment, but then also there's this kind of feedback loop where they can become really strong reinforcers and drive our behavior in a way that whole and foundational foods don't and shouldn't.'
Unfortunately, these foods are at the heart of the US food supply and have been growing. One of Fazzino's studies found the prevalence of ultraprocessed, hyper-palatable and high energy-dense foods were all significantly higher in 2018 compared with 1988.
And there is plenty of overlap between the three categories. 'When we look at the food supply over time, by the time we get to 2018, we see that the vast majority of ultraprocessed foods are also hyper-palatable,' she said.
What can you do to manage the amount of hyper-palatable foods you consume? Fazzino has these five tips.
Develop awareness
Pay attention to how your food is affecting you as you are eating it.
Fazzino suggested this experiment: If you're eating a bag of potato chips, does your brain tell you, get the next one, get the next one — before you have even swallowed? Or when you're almost done with the bag, does your body tell you that you want more?
'In contrast with, when you eat an apple, none of that extra stuff is going to be happening,' she said. 'It's going to be pleasant and you're going to stop when you're full.'
Eat more natural whole foods
Try to add foods to your diet that are whole and occurring in nature, which means they haven't had anything done to them, Fazzino said.
Whole foods that occur in nature, Fazzino said, typically have 'one palatability-related nutrient,' such as the sugar in a whole apple.
Those whole foods also include 'satiety-promoting nutrients such as fiber, water and protein that slow their absorption and digestion into our system,' she said, noting that they won't cause us to overeat or create a strong motivational drive to seek them out.
Be wary of sodium
Pay attention to the amount of salt in foods.
'One really robust commonality that we found in this work has been the presence of sodium as a nutrient that, when combined with either fat or starchy carbohydrates, can really be a vehicle for hyper-palatability,' Fazzino said, explaining that sodium 'activates the opioid system in the brain.'
We are often told to reduce sodium overall for our heart health, she said, but salt is not as well-known for contributing to hyper-palatability as fat and sugar are.
There is no magic sodium number or threshold used to determine whether the amount of salt in a particular food contributes to hyper-palatability. But Fazzino recommends people look for low-sodium options in the cracker aisle or the frozen dinner section, for example.
Fazzino also encouraged home cooks to keep sodium in mind, since a lot of ingredients have added salt. (Be mindful of the butter, cheese and sausage bits you may be adding to your omelet.)
'Go light on what you add,' she said. 'That will help to avoid the hyper-palatability piece.'
Avoid foods with certain key words
Stay away from food labels touting properties such as 'diet,' 'reduced fat' or 'lean,' Fazzino recommended.
'A lot of the diet foods, as we found in our analysis of the food system, are hyper-palatable,' she said. Without the bliss point engineering, she noted, those foods would not be as palatable.
And when one key ingredient is reduced, another is often increased. These food products are marketed with less fat, for example, but maybe they contain more added sugar, she said.
Understand the deck is stacked against you
Be aware that hyper-palatable foods are designed to entice you.
'They're designed to be difficult to resist and difficult to stop eating Fazzino said. 'And it's not the individual's fault.'
Ultimately, Fazzino said systemic changes may be needed to meaningfully address the prevalence of these foods in the food supply.
We hope these five tips help you learn more about hyper-palatable foods. Listen to the full episode here. And join us next week on the Chasing Life podcast when we meet a doctor who found himself on the other side of the stethoscope after he was diagnosed with brain cancer. Dr. Sanjay Gupta speaks to him before and after his surgery.
CNN Audio's Jesse Remedios contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UAMS chancellor stepping down after 7 years, returning to faculty
UAMS chancellor stepping down after 7 years, returning to faculty

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

UAMS chancellor stepping down after 7 years, returning to faculty

UAMS Chancellor Cam Patterson announces a new $31.7 million grant from the National Institutes of Health on July 10, 2024. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate) The leader of Arkansas' largest healthcare system will step down after seven years for personal and medical reasons, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences announced Tuesday in a news release. Dr. Cam Patterson became the university's chancellor in June 2018. By giving up his position as chancellor and as UAMS Health CEO, he will return to being a faculty member in the university's cardiology department. Patterson 'is facing medical and personal issues that require more attention than he can give them while serving in the chancellor's position,' according to UAMS' news release. 'The work our team has done at UAMS over the last seven-plus years has been the high point of my career,' Patterson said in the release. 'We have a lot to be proud of and I've been the luckiest guy to be a part of it. I am excited about the opportunity to return to the faculty and engage more deeply in the academic and clinical missions at our institution.' UAMS System President Jay Silveria praised Patterson's leadership tenure in the release. 'Leading UAMS is a demanding task, and I appreciate Dr. Patterson's need to do what he feels is best for himself and his family and for the long-term success of the university,' Silveria said. 'His contributions to UAMS came through unusually restrictive times, and he should be celebrated for his efforts to push the institution forward while navigating a challenging environment.' Patterson 'oversaw both challenges and improvement in the university's economic outlook, despite the myriad issues presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and other unforeseen variables,' the release states. One such challenge was a conflict between state and federal mandates regarding COVID-19 vaccinations. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a mandate in November 2021 for health workers to be fully vaccinated or receive exemptions, with noncompliant facilities at risk of losing federal funding. The rule directly conflicted with a 2021 Arkansas law that said COVID-19 vaccination 'shall not be a condition of education, employment, entry, or services from the state or a state agency or entity' unless lawmakers approved an exception. Patterson sought an exemption and defended this decision before a legislative committee. Silveria will name an interim UAMS chancellor 'in the coming weeks' and start a national search for Patterson's permanent successor, the news release states. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Sen. Collins grills NIH director on research cuts
Sen. Collins grills NIH director on research cuts

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sen. Collins grills NIH director on research cuts

Jun. 10—Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of the National Institutes of Health, faced sharp questions from Sen. Susan Collins and other senators Tuesday about a proposed 40% budget reduction at the NIH and other cutbacks that are disrupting biomedical research. Bhattacharya appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on labor, health and human services and education on Tuesday as the Trump administration has slashed funding for biomedical research and public health. On Monday, hundreds of NIH scientists signed a letter, called the "Bethesda Declaration," asking the Trump administration to protect funding for biomedical research. Also Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised concerns among public health advocates when he summarily dismissed all 17 members of a key committee that advises the government on approving vaccines. Kennedy, who has falsely questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, has not said who he would place on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which among other duties, recommends the formulation for the annual influenza vaccine. At the Senate hearing Tuesday, Bhattacharya largely dodged questions about the Trump administration's proposals to slash the agency, and the ongoing cuts to research grants. Collins, who voted to confirm Bhattacharya but has decried NIH cuts, questioned why the Trump administration is requesting a $19 billion cut to the NIH in the 2026 budget, which she said would "undo years of congressional investment." "It would delay or stop effective treatments and cures being developed for diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer and Type 1 diabetes," said Collins, who is chair of the Appropriations Committee. "We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research." Bhattacharya said the agency is "fully committed" to making progress on Alzheimer's and that the 2026 budget will be a "collaboration" between Congress and the White House. But, despite getting a series of questions from Collins and other Republican and Democratic senators, Bhattacharya did not specifically address the rationale for the budget cuts. Collins has also been speaking out for months against the agency's moves to cap the amount of money that biomedical researchers can use for indirect costs at no more than 15% of their NIH grants. The indirect costs include overhead expenses, equipment and technical support for scientific research and scientists say the cap would hobble research laboratories in Maine and across the country. The amount that NIH grants pay for indirect costs varies by grant, but made up 26% of the cost of each grant, on average, in 2023. Collins has also directly lobbied Kennedy to reverse the NIH cap on indirect costs, and Maine has joined other states in a lawsuit to block the cuts. On Tuesday, Collins said she is still "alarmed and surprised the administration's budget request (for next year) contains the same 15% cap." Bhattacharya said he couldn't discuss the indirect costs issue because of the pending lawsuit, but that there's "lots of great possibilities for reform" on how NIH awards grants for research. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, also pointed out that the NIH has so far in 2025 spent $3 billion less on biomedical research compared to the same time in 2024, largely by freezing or denying grant funding on research that Congress previously approved. Much of the denied funding is the subject of pending lawsuits by states and universities that argue the Trump administration is illegally blocking the funding. The lawsuits argue that the executive branch is required to spend money that Congress approves, and the Trump administration does not have the power to block previously approved funding. "How is this anything other than sabotaging biomedical research?" Baldwin said. Bhattacharya did not answer, except to say he's "happy to work with Congress" on funding issues. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said the cuts to research are disturbing. "For God's sake, we lead the world in medical research. Why would we walk away from it?" Durbin said. Copy the Story Link

Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways
Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. That roughly 40 percent reduction means 1,800 fewer new grants would be awarded and funded through the NIH and would impact many current grants, according to STAT. The budget also details Trump administration plans to restructure the agency and consolidate its 27 institutes into eight. Congress has the final say on how federal dollars are allocated, so the final NIH budget could look different. Here are four takeaways from the hearing: National Institutes of Health grant awards have plummeted since Trump returned to the White House in late January. One analysis found that the NIH has issued $2.3 billion less in new grant funds between January and April of this year than it did during that same time in 2024. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) questioned Bhattacharya about the drop in grant funding and asked who was behind the decision to terminate or withhold funding. Bhattacharya, at first, tried to sidestep the question but eventually took responsibility for the agency's grant cancellations. 'There [have been] changes in priorities for the NIH, to move away from politicized science. I've made those decisions,' he said. 'Decisions regarding, for instance, Harvard and some other institutions, that's joint with the administration.' The NIH has canceled $9.5 billion worth of funding through 2,100 research grants since January and another $2.6 billion in contracts supporting clinical trials, according to a recent letter signed by more than 2,000 NIH scientists condemning the Trump administration's research cuts. Democratic Senators hammered Bhattacharya over the administration's desire to greatly reduce the NIH's spending. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) noted that research in his home state has taken a hit and that Northwestern University has not 'received a penny in NIH grants in 11 weeks.' 'I'm very hopeful that a resolution can be made with the universities where those decisions have been made,' Bhattacharya said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) questioned Bhattacharya over the NIH's decision to impose a 15 percent cap on indirect costs in grant research. Bhattacharya said that he could not speak directly to the cap since it is subject to litigation. Instead, he spoke to how changes in the NIH's grant funding process are an opportunity to ensure that funds are more broadly distributed across the country's research institutions. He argued that the agency's research funding 'very concentrated' with 20 universities receive 60 percent to 65 percent of NIH's funding. 'It's absolutely vital that the NIH's investments are geographically dispersed,' he said. 'I would love to work with Congress to think of ways to make NIH's investment in scientific research more geographically dispersed.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pushed Bhattacharya to answer long-standing questions about the consequences of the Trump administration's changes to the NIH, including just how many staff members have been terminated or left the agency amid threats of future layoffs. Murray also asked the director just how many clinical trials have been impacted by the NIH's grant terminations or pauses and how many fewer clinical trials the agency would be able to fund next year if the proposed budget were approved. Bhattacharya said he could not answer either question but pledged to send a response to Murray's office by the end of the day. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store