Ultra-processed foods: Industry claims versus the evidence

By A Representative 

Dr. Arun Gupta, convener of Nutrition Advocacy for Public Interest (NAPi) and a former member of the Prime Minister's Council on India's Nutrition Challenges, has drawn attention to a commentary that dissects the food industry's standard arguments against regulating ultra-processed foods (UPFs). 

Sharing the piece, titled "The Case for Ultra-Processed Food" and published on the Healthscaping Substack, Dr. Gupta said it offers simple answers to the industry's claims. He noted that the six arguments the food industry deploys against UPF regulation in the United States apply almost everywhere: that UPFs are safe, that they are nutritious, that they are convenient, that they are affordable, that consumers are free to choose what they eat, and that consumers already have the information they need to choose wisely.

The commentary, written by Thomas Farley, takes up each of these claims in turn. On safety, Farley argues that while modern food is largely free of bacterial contamination, that is a narrow and outdated definition of safety, since people who eat UPFs consume roughly 500 more calories a day than those who do not, driving rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes. 

On nutrition, he acknowledges that many UPFs are fortified with vitamins and minerals, but points out that fortification does not require a product to be ultra-processed, and that no proposed policy would interfere with it. 

On affordability, he contends that cheap UPFs simply shift costs onto consumers in the form of medical bills and lost productivity from diet-related illness, with low-income and minority consumers bearing the heaviest burden. 

On convenience, he concedes the industry's point but argues that health should be valued above convenience, especially given that some UPFs can remain edible for decades. 

On consumer choice, he counters that supermarkets already stock some 30,000 items, that billions in advertising shape what people choose to eat, and that health experts are not proposing to ban UPFs outright. 

On access to information, he argues that nutrition labels were adopted only after industry resistance and remain difficult for ordinary consumers to interpret.

Farley concludes that the policies actually being proposed are modest, including restrictions on marketing to children, clearer labelling, counter-advertising campaigns, keeping UPFs out of schools, limits on their purchase through food assistance programs, and taxes on the most harmful products such as sugar-sweetened beverages.