Study: How Ultra-Processed Food Companies Convince Consumers Their Products Are "Healthier"

Companies producing ultra-processed foods (UPFs) often use marketing and communication strategies to persuade consumers and policymakers that their products are healthier than other ultra-processed foods, according to new research presented at the International Congress on Obesity (ICO2026), organized by the World Obesity Federation in Mexico City.

The preliminary study was conducted by researchers from the University of Nevada, Reno and the University of California, San Francisco. It examined how different sectors of the food and beverage industry respond to growing scientific concerns about the health effects of ultra-processed foods and how they attempt to shape the debate over their definition.

Ultra-processed foods are industrially manufactured products made largely from refined ingredients—such as starches, sugars, and fats—and various additives, including artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners, and emulsifiers. They typically contain little or no whole foods and have been linked to an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

The researchers analyzed public comments submitted by food industry organizations after the U.S. government requested feedback in 2025 to help establish an official definition of ultra-processed foods for future research and public health policy.

The analysis found that, despite representing different sectors of the industry, most organizations advanced similar arguments. They claimed that ultra-processed foods are not inherently unhealthy, argued that food processing methods and additives are safe because they are already regulated, and promoted evaluating foods based on their nutritional composition and overall dietary patterns rather than the degree of processing.

Many industry groups also criticized the widely used NOVA food classification system, arguing that it conflicts with existing dietary guidelines and regulatory frameworks.

Researchers identified a particularly notable strategy among some manufacturers: distancing their own products from other ultra-processed foods by portraying them as healthier alternatives.

For example, companies producing plant-based products, dairy foods, and breakfast cereals argued that their products should not be grouped with foods such as potato chips, sugary drinks, confectionery, or processed meats.

Manufacturers also highlighted the potential health benefits of their products. Some promoted low- or no-calorie beverages as important sources of hydration, while cereal manufacturers pointed to studies suggesting that cereal consumption is associated with a lower risk of chronic diseases compared with some other processed foods.

The researchers also found that several organizations called for additional scientific evidence before introducing an official definition of ultra-processed foods. According to the authors, this reflects a common industry strategy of delaying regulatory action by arguing that more research is needed despite the substantial body of existing evidence linking ultra-processed food consumption to adverse health outcomes.

The authors concluded that while the food industry's overall messaging is largely consistent, some companies increasingly seek to distinguish their own products from what they describe as "unhealthy" ultra-processed foods in an effort to avoid negative classification.

"This strategy essentially amounts to saying, 'our ultra-processed food is healthier than theirs,'" the researchers noted.

Professor Laura Schmidt added that there is growing anticipation in the United States for the release of a long-awaited federal definition of ultra-processed foods, which has reportedly been prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is currently awaiting approval from the executive branch.

Follow NEWS.am Medicine on Facebook and Twitter