Ultra-Processed Foods: Why You Can't Stop Eating Them

The Problem We’re Not Talking About

In my practice working with eating disorders, food addiction, and mental health, I see the same pattern repeatedly: intelligent, motivated clients struggling with what they perceive as a lack of willpower around certain foods. They can’t understand why they keep returning to the same ultra-processed foods (UPFs) despite knowing these foods make them feel terrible—physically and psychologically.

Here’s what I tell them: This isn’t about your willpower. The deck is stacked against you.

A groundbreaking new Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health just provided the most comprehensive analysis to date of how corporate actors have systematically restructured our food system for profit [1]. And the findings validate what many of us in mental health nutrition have observed clinically for years: the proliferation of UPFs isn’t a natural market response to consumer demand—it’s the result of deliberate corporate strategies designed to maximize profit by engineering overconsumption.

This matters enormously for those of us working in mental health nutrition, eating disorders, and addiction medicine. We can’t effectively treat individual pathology while ignoring the commercial determinants that perpetuate it.

Why Ultra-Processing Dominates: Follow the Money

The NOVA food classification system explicitly recognizes that the purpose of ultra-processing is profit maximization [2]. This isn’t hyperbole—it’s the business model.

Here’s how it works:

Cost minimization through industrial processing:

• Start with the cheapest possible commodity ingredients (corn syrup, soybean oil, wheat flour, palm oil)
• Use processing technologies to create products with an extended shelf life
• Replace expensive whole food ingredients with cheaper chemical substitutes
• Achieve massive economies of scale

Demand generation through engineered palatability:

• Optimize products for “bliss points” that hijack reward pathways [3]
• Invest heavily in marketing (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez spent $13.2 billion on advertising in 2024—nearly four times WHO’s entire operating budget) [1].
• Target vulnerable populations, including children and those experiencing psychological distress

The profitability advantage:

Between 1962 and 2021, UPF manufacturers distributed $1.5 trillion in shareholder payouts—more than half of all payouts across the entire food production chain combined [1]. This extraordinary profitability creates a reinforcing loop: it incentivizes the ultra-processed business model over alternatives and generates resources for continued expansion.

What This Means for My Clients

When I work with someone struggling with binge eating disorder and/or addiction, I’m not just addressing their individual psychology—I’m helping them navigate a food environment intentionally designed to promote overconsumption. The tobacco industry famously hired food scientists to engineer hyperpalatable foods after acquiring major food companies in the 1980s [4]. These aren’t neutral products. They’re products optimized to be irresistible.

This reframe is often profoundly healing for clients who’ve internalized shame about their “lack of control.” Understanding the commercial determinants doesn’t absolve personal responsibility, but it contextualizes their struggle within a rigged system. We can then focus on building food sovereignty—reclaiming agency within constraints—rather than perpetuating self-blame.

I frequently call this value-based eating. 

The Corporate Playbook: How Industry Blocks Change

The main barrier to effective policy isn’t lack of scientific evidence—we have overwhelming evidence that UPFs harm health [5]. The barrier is corporate political activity: coordinated strategies to counter opposition and block regulation [1].

Lobbying and Political Capture

Between 1998-2020, the US food and beverage industry spent $1.15 billion lobbying the US Government [6]. That’s not a typo. Over a billion dollars to influence policy.

And it works. Consider:

• 64.7% of US food and beverage lobbyists in 2024 were former government employees (the “revolving door”) [1]
• Industry routinely threatens to relocate jobs or investments if unfavorable regulations pass
• Trade associations position themselves as representing “small businesses” and “consumer choice” while actually serving the interests of multinational corporations

Manufacturing Doubt Through Corporate Science

The industry has perfected the art of manufacturing scientific doubt—the same playbook used by tobacco and fossil fuel industries.

The evidence:

• Studies funded by industry are five times more likely to show no association between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity compared to independent research [7]
• Coca-Cola funded the “Global Energy Balance Network” to promote the message that physical inactivity—not poor diet—is the major cause of obesity [8]
• A recent analysis identified approximately 3,800 articles published between 2008-2023 disclosing UPF manufacturer funding [1]

I see the downstream effects of this corporate science constantly. Clients arrive confused by conflicting nutrition information, uncertain whether UPFs are actually problematic, and convinced that “balance” and “moderation” are the solutions to everything. Meanwhile, corporate-funded dietitian influencers push “anti-diet” messaging that conveniently positions all foods as equivalent—erasing the meaningful distinction between minimally processed whole foods and chemically-engineered products designed for overconsumption.

Co-Opting Health Professionals

This is uncomfortable to discuss, but necessary: our professional nutrition organizations have become compromised by industry funding.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics—the largest organization of nutrition professionals in the US—has accepted millions from companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé [9]. This creates institutional conflicts of interest that shape everything from continuing education to policy positions.

When I left the Academy after 13 years, it was because I could no longer reconcile my commitment to evidence-based practice with an organization that partnered with the very industries undermining public health. We need professional associations that represent public health interests—not corporate interests.

What Success Looks Like: Learning from Other Countries

While the US lags, other countries have implemented bold policies that actually work. These examples demonstrate what’s possible when public health prevails over corporate profit.

Chile: Comprehensive Policy Framework

Chile’s 2016 Food Labeling and Marketing Law combined three elements [10]:

• Black octagon warning labels on the front of packages
• Restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children
• Bans on sales in schools

Results after implementation:

• 24% reduction in purchasing products with warning labels [11]
• Significant reductions in children’s exposure to unhealthy food marketing [12]
• Strong public support (over 90% approval)

Mexico: Using Tax Revenue for Health

Mexico implemented a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in 2014, then strengthened it with comprehensive warning labels in 2020 [13]. The government hypothecated tax revenues to fund drinking water fountains in schools—addressing both the problem (reducing soda consumption) and the solution (increasing access to water).

Results:

• Sustained reductions in purchases of taxed beverages
• Substantial effects in low-income households
• Decreased consumption of products carrying warning labels

What Would This Look Like in the US?

Imagine if we:

• Implemented front-of-pack warning labels on UPFs (like cigarette warnings)
• Restricted marketing of UPFs to children across all media platforms
• Removed UPFs from SNAP-eligible purchases (or created incentives for whole foods)
• Taxed UPFs and used revenue to subsidize fresh produce in underserved communities
• Required schools to serve minimally processed meals

These aren’t radical ideas. They’re evidence-based policies that other countries have successfully implemented. But in the US, industry lobbying has effectively blocked progress at the federal level.

My “Sanity Before Vanity” Philosophy in Context

I’ve built my practice around a “sanity before vanity” philosophy—prioritizing mental health outcomes over weight management. This approach takes on additional meaning when we understand the commercial determinants of diet.

The UPF industry’s obesity-focused framing (emphasizing personal responsibility, calorie balance, and exercise) is itself a political strategy. It deflects attention from corporate practices and structural determinants while stigmatizing individuals living in larger bodies [14]. There is also a psyop to create culture wars to fight against weight stigma, so that people are fighting amongst themselves rather than seeing the industry’s role.

When we center mental health in nutrition work, we naturally:

1. Question the role of UPFs in perpetuating psychological distress
   • Inflammatory pathways linking UPFs to depression [15]
   • Dopamine dysregulation from chronically consuming hyperpalatable foods [16]
   • The cycle of restriction and binge eating is perpetuated by diet culture
2. Recognize biological, not just behavioral, underpinnings
   • Food addiction is a legitimate phenomenon with neurobiological mechanisms
   • Individual variation in susceptibility to addictive eating patterns
   • The futility of “moderation” for some people with certain products
3. Support system-level solutions
   • Policies that make minimally processed foods more accessible
   • Regulations that reduce marketing manipulation
   • Environmental changes that make healthy default choices easier
4. Challenge weight stigma that serves industry interests
   • Rejecting body shaming while acknowledging the health impacts of ultra-processed diets
   • Separating body size from moral worth
   • Recognizing that weight-focused interventions often perpetuate disordered eating

What We Can Do: Practical Steps for Health Professionals

1. End Industry Partnerships

Professional level:

• Reject industry sponsorship of conferences and continuing education
• Advocate within professional organizations for conflict of interest policies
• Support independent funding sources for nutrition research

Individual level:

• Refuse speaking fees or consulting arrangements with UPF manufacturers
• Disclose any conflicts of interest prominently
• Question whether partnerships with industry align with ethical obligations to clients

2. Integrate Commercial Determinants into Clinical Practice

With clients:

• Acknowledge food environment constraints explicitly
• Reframe struggles as navigating a system designed to promote overconsumption
• Reduce shame by contextualizing individual challenges within structural causes
• Support clients in building food sovereignty within realistic constraints

In treatment planning:

• Consider whether goals are realistic, given environmental barriers
• Address the unique properties of UPFs that make “moderation” difficult for some
• Incorporate harm reduction approaches when abstinence from certain foods isn’t achievable
• Connect clients to resources for accessing minimally processed foods (community supported agriculture, food banks, cooking education)

3. Advocate for Policy Change

We can’t treat our way out of a problem created by corporate power. Policy change is essential.

Local level:

• Support school food policies that prioritize minimally processed meals
• Advocate for zoning restrictions on fast food outlets near schools
• Work with local food banks to prioritize fresh produce over shelf-stable UPFs

State level:

• Support state-level taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages
• Advocate for restrictions on marketing to children
• Push for inclusion of nutrition in medical and mental health training

Federal level:

• Contact representatives about food policy priorities
• Support organizations working on food system reform
• Amplify the voices of communities most affected by unhealthy food environments

4. Educate and Communicate Strategically

Challenge misleading narratives:

• Push back on “all foods fit” ideology when it erases meaningful distinctions between food types
• Call out industry-funded “science” that manufactures doubt
• Distinguish between body acceptance (good) and UPF acceptance (problematic)

Build alternative narratives:

• Frame UPFs as commercial products, not traditional foods
• Emphasize the displacement of nutritious foods, not just calorie content
• Connect individual health to food system health
• Use accessible language while maintaining scientific rigor

The Path Forward: From Individual Treatment to Collective Action

Here’s what gives me hope: public awareness is building rapidly. Media articles using the term “ultra-processed foods” increased from 4 in 2010 to over 6,850 in 2024 [1]. People are waking up to the fact that our food system is broken—and that it’s broken intentionally, for profit.

The science is clear:

• Over 1,400 studies link UPF consumption to adverse health outcomes [5]
• Policies work—front-of-pack labels, marketing restrictions, and taxes successfully reduce consumption [10,11,13]
• The NOVA classification provides a framework that centers the commercial purpose of ultra-processing [2]

But science alone won’t change policy. We need:

1. Powerful advocacy coalitions that unite health professionals, community organizations, researchers, and affected communities
2. Sustained funding for advocacy work (not just research or clinical services)
3. Political champions willing to stand up to industry lobbying
4. Strategic communications that counter industry narratives
5. Legal support for governments facing industry litigation

What This Means for You

I’m not suggesting you need to become a full-time activist. But I am suggesting that clinical practice disconnected from advocacy for system-level change is insufficient.

Consider:

• Are you addressing food environment constraints with clients, or inadvertently reinforcing personal responsibility narratives?
• Does your professional association accept industry funding? If so, are you speaking out?
• Are you supporting policies that would make your clients’ recovery easier?
• Are you connecting individual struggles to structural causes in a way that reduces shame?

Conclusion: Reclaiming Food Systems for Health

The proliferation of UPFs isn’t about consumer choice or demand for convenience. It’s about corporate power systematically restructuring food systems for profitability above health, equity, and sustainability.

As mental health nutrition professionals, we’re on the frontlines of treating the casualties. But we have an ethical obligation to do more than treat casualties—we need to address root causes.

This means:

• Understanding commercial determinants, not just individual pathology
• Speaking out against industry practices that harm our clients
• Supporting just transitions to food systems that nourish rather than exploit
• Refusing to let our professional organizations be captured by corporate interests

The good news? Solutions exist. Other countries have proven that comprehensive policies can reduce UPF consumption, improve population health, and maintain public support. The barrier isn’t knowledge—it’s political will.

And political will comes from sustained advocacy. From health care professionals utilizing their expertise and credibility to support policy change. From affected communities demanding better. From all of us refusing to accept a food system designed to make us sick for profit.

We can continue treating individual pathology within a broken system, or we can work collectively to fix that system. I choose the latter. I hope you’ll join me.

Want to go deeper?

Read the full Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health:

• Paper 1: The evidence on UPFs and health [2]
• Paper 2: Policy solutions [17]
• Paper 3: Understanding commercial determinants [1]

Read another related blog and follow my newsletter on mental health nutrition.

References

1. Baker P, Slater S, White M, et al. Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response. Lancet 2025; published online Nov 18.
2. Monteiro CA, Louzada ML, Steele-Martinez E, et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence. Lancet 2025; published online Nov 18.
3. Moss M. Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. Signal, 2013.
4. Fazzino TL, Jun D, Chollet-Hinton L, Bjorlie K. US tobacco companies selectively disseminated hyper-palatable foods into the US food system. Addiction 2024; 119: 62–71.
5. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ 2024; 384: e077310.
6. Chung H, Cullerton K, Lacy-Nichols J. Mapping the lobbying footprint of harmful industries: 23 years of data from OpenSecrets. Milbank Q 2024; 102: 212–32.
7. Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001578.
8. Greenhalgh S. Inside ILSI: How Coca-Cola created a global science of exercise for obesity and got it embedded in Chinese policy. J Health Polit Policy Law 2021; 46: 235–76.
9. Carriedo A, Pinsky I, Crosbie E, Ruskin G, Mialon M. The corporate capture of the nutrition profession in the USA: the case of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Public Health Nutr 2022; 25: 1–15.
10. Corvalán C, Reyes M, Garmendia ML, Uauy R. Structural responses to the obesity and non-communicable diseases epidemic: the Chilean Law of Food Labeling and Advertising. Obes Rev 2013; 14(suppl 2): 79–87.
11. Taillie LS, Bercholz M, Popkin B, et al. Changes in food purchases after the Chilean policies on food labelling, marketing, and sales in schools. Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5: e526–33.
12. Dillman Carpentier FR, Mediano Stoltze F, Reyes M, et al. Restricting child-directed ads is effective, but adding a time-based ban is better. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2023; 20: 62.
13. Batis C, Castellanos-Gutiérrez A, Sánchez-Pimienta TG, et al. Comparison of dietary intake before vs after taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense foods in Mexico, 2012 to 2018. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6: e2325191.
14. Herrick C. Shifting blame/selling health: corporate social responsibility in the age of obesity. Sociol Health Illn 2009; 31: 51–65.
15. Adjibade M, Julia C, Allès B, et al. Prospective association between ultra-processed food consumption and incident depressive symptoms in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort. BMC Med 2019; 17: 78.
16. Schulte EM, Avena NM, Gearhardt AN. Which foods may be addictive? The roles of processing, fat content, and glycemic load. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0117959.
17. Scrinis G, Popkin B, Corvalan C, et al. Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption. Lancet 2025; published online Nov 18.