Ultraprocessed foods are getting more public attention, but many Americans still do not have a clear answer to a basic question: What counts?
A new survey suggests that when it comes to ultraprocessed food policy, Americans may want clarity before crackdowns. Researchers from Purdue University and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign found strong support for information-based policies, such as creating a clearer definition of ultraprocessed foods and offering dietary recommendations. Support was lower for taxes, while restriction-based policies drew more mixed reactions depending on where they would apply.
The study, published in PLOS One, surveyed 990 U.S. consumers through the Gardner Food and Agricultural Policy Survey. Researchers asked respondents how much they supported six hypothetical ultraprocessed food policies: defining ultraprocessed foods, providing dietary recommendations, restricting ultraprocessed foods in grocery stores, restricting them in schools, restricting them in food assistance programs and taxing them.
“Ultimately, policy movement depends on public buy-in. We wanted to understand what policies the public might support and why,” said Maria Kalaitzandonakes, assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois.
The strongest support was for information-based policies. That finding matters because ultraprocessed food has become a common phrase in nutrition coverage, social media and public health discussions, but the category is still confusing for many consumers.
“When we looked across all respondents, people were very, very supportive of information-based policies,” said Brenna Ellison of Purdue University, lead author of the study. “They really want that basic information, including definitions and intake recommendations.”
That does not mean Americans are unconcerned about ultraprocessed foods. The study found majority support for some restriction-based policies, especially in schools. Researchers said that likely reflects concern about children’s diets and the foods available in school settings.
But the picture was not the same for every policy. Taxing ultraprocessed foods was the only option that did not receive majority support. The researchers said that was not surprising at a time when many households are already feeling pressure from high food prices.
“Taxes are never popular but especially given the high food prices that people have been encountering for quite some time, the idea of additional taxes is even less popular than it probably would have been before,” Ellison said.
The survey also found political differences. Democrats were more supportive of information-based policies, while Republicans were more supportive of restrictions in food assistance programs. Independents and respondents in other political categories were least supportive of grocery store restrictions and taxes. Support for restricting ultraprocessed foods in schools was similar across the political spectrum.
People’s existing views about ultraprocessed foods were especially important. Respondents who viewed ultraprocessed foods as unsafe or addictive were more likely to support most restrictions. Those who viewed them as unhealthy were especially supportive of restrictions in schools. People who viewed ultraprocessed foods as tasty were less likely to support restrictions, particularly in grocery stores.
“There are some interesting nuances there,” Kalaitzandonakes said. “I think this matters because, ultimately, if you are a decisionmaker at the federal or state level, getting buy-in from your constituents is going to be important.”
The study does not show which policies would improve diet quality or health outcomes. It also does not settle how ultraprocessed foods should be defined. Instead, it measures public attitudes toward possible policy approaches at a time when the term is widely discussed but still unevenly understood.
That distinction is important. Ultraprocessed foods are often discussed as a single category, but consumers encounter them in many forms, from sugary drinks and packaged snacks to fortified cereals, flavored yogurts, meat substitutes and convenience meals. Some products in the category are high in added sugar, sodium or saturated fat. Others may provide useful nutrients or fit into a realistic eating pattern, especially for people with limited time, money, cooking equipment or access to fresh foods.
A clearer definition could help consumers understand the difference between a useful guideline and a warning label that sweeps too broadly. It also could help policymakers avoid rules that sound simple but are difficult to apply in schools, food assistance programs or grocery stores.
Kalaitzandonakes noted that school restrictions, for example, would not be as simple as removing certain foods. Schools may need support for kitchen equipment, staffing, produce supply chains and other practical changes if they are expected to serve fewer ultraprocessed foods.
“If a school is not equipped to do a lot of scratch cooking, they’ll need support to transition that way,” she said.
For consumers, the survey points to a practical need: better information. People may be hearing more about ultraprocessed foods, but many still need help understanding what the term means, how it relates to nutrition quality and how to make realistic choices without turning every packaged food into a source of fear.
“I think it's really exciting to see Americans across the country having conversations about the foods that they're eating and food policy,” Kalaitzandonakes said. “They want the foods they're eating to be good for them.”
This research was supported by the Gardner Agricultural Policy Program at the University of Illinois and internal start-up funds from the College of Agriculture at Purdue University.