[MUSIC PLAYING] FLORA LICHTMAN: Hello, I’m Flora Lichtman, and welcome to Science Friday. Before diving in, let’s talk about a hot topic: ultra-processed foods (UPFs). These widely appealing, heavily processed items make up a significant portion of the American diet and are increasingly under scrutiny from policymakers aiming to curb our consumption. The latest federal dietary guidelines even recommend minimizing these foods. Here’s a perspective from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on healthier eating options.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR: It’s vital to incorporate protein and healthy fats into our diet, which were incorrectly downplayed in past guidelines. We’re moving away from the old stance on saturated fats.
FLORA LICHTMAN: So, healthier fats are back on the menu, while snacks like Flamin’ Hot double-stuffed mini pizza rolls are being pushed aside. Today, we’re exploring these new federal food guidelines and their significance. Later in the episode, we’ll sift through our snack drawer to better understand ultra-processed foods.
Joining me are two expert guests: Laura Schmidt, a professor at UC San Francisco’s Institute for Health Policy Studies, focusing on chronic disease and our food system, and Alyssa Moran, deputy director at the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at Penn, who specializes in nutrition policy research. Welcome to both of you!
LAURA SCHMIDT: Hi Flora!
ALYSSA MORAN: Hi Flora, thanks for having me.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Laura, what are your overall thoughts on the guidelines?
LAURA SCHMIDT: I have some concerns about how these guidelines are framed as personal health recommendations. Many in the public health and nutrition community believe the bigger issues stem from the food environment, which individuals often can’t control. While there’s debate around recommendations for saturated fats, I fully support the overall advice against ultra-processed foods. However, considering they make up 70% of grocery store offerings, avoiding them is challenging, especially with rising food prices making them more accessible. Wealthy individuals may find alternatives, but many others cannot.
FLORA LICHTMAN: That’s a fair point. Alyssa, what about you? What are your impressions of the guidelines?
ALYSSA MORAN: I have mixed feelings, as I usually do about dietary guidelines. The essential message about eating real food resonates well with me. I was excited to see the recommendation to limit highly processed foods and shift towards minimally processed, whole foods.
This guideline marks a first in history by directly addressing highly processed foods. Previous guidelines alluded to this by recommending limits on added sugars and salt, but now they call out specific categories deemed unhealthy—namely junk foods.
These encompass ready-to-eat snacks, sugary drinks, and candies. Interestingly, the U.S. has been somewhat behind other countries, like Brazil, which has long advised against ultra-processed foods in their dietary guidelines.
FLORA LICHTMAN: That’s quite surprising! Regarding the emphasis on more protein and healthy fats, what are your thoughts, Alyssa?
ALYSSA MORAN: I have mixed feelings about the types of protein being promoted. It’s somewhat amusing how prominently steak appears in the new food pyramid.
LAURA SCHMIDT: Yes, exactly!
ALYSSA MORAN: Past guidelines aligned better with scientific evidence, favoring seafood and plant-based proteins—like nuts and legumes—while the current ones seem to emphasize meat and dairy, straying from previous advice.
FLORA LICHTMAN: There have been prior criticisms regarding the influence of the food industry—particularly about meat and dairy—on these guidelines. How do we decide what goes into them?
ALYSSA MORAN: Generally, a scientific advisory committee appointed by the government reviews literature on various nutrition topics and serves for about two years. They engage in extensive modeling and produce a detailed report with recommendations for federal agencies.
However, we often see discrepancies between these recommendations and the final guidelines due to political influences, leading to omissions or additions that don’t align with scientific reports.
LAURA SCHMIDT: My research focuses on scientific conflicts of interest in nutrition science. A longstanding concern is that the ultra-processed food industry has had significant influence, which may explain why Brazil is ahead of us in recommending the avoidance of such foods.
This time around, it’s a different industry pressing the committee—those with ties to meat and dairy producers, resulting in a focus on steaks and full-fat dairy at the top of the pyramid, humorously dubbed the keto cone.
Despite my initial optimism about removing conflicts of interest, I’m disappointed to see financial ties to the meat and dairy sectors influencing guidelines.
ALYSSA MORAN: It’s worth noting that this time, a new committee was appointed after the scientific report went out for public comment, which created a report that didn’t undergo public commentary. Many final guidelines stemmed from this second report.
And while there has been talk about eliminating conflicts of interest in nutrition science, many members of this committee had significant ties to the meat and dairy sector, which is evident in the guidelines.
LAURA SCHMIDT: And for all the promises of increased transparency, it feels as if someone invisible wrote the final guidelines. We have no idea who authored them, yet they represent national advice on what Americans should eat.
FLORA LICHTMAN: What’s the purpose of these guidelines? Do they drive any change?
LAURA SCHMIDT: Absolutely. The main issue we face in America is rooted in our food environment. When you consider that we have alarming obesity rates and rising instances of diabetes, particularly among children, it’s evident that the guidelines play a crucial role.
FLORA LICHTMAN: “DGA” refers to dietary guidelines?
LAURA SCHMIDT: Yes, the dietary guidelines primarily influence federal food programs, such as the National School Lunch Program. As one of the largest food purchasers in the country, the federal government can either promote healthier options or continue subsidizing unhealthy products. While I appreciate the recommendation to avoid ultra-processed foods, we must hope it translates into healthier school meals.
ALYSSA MORAN: Many people are unaware that the dietary guidelines aren’t just individual advice; they also legally underpin federal nutrition programs. Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program must adhere to these guidelines. Any changes impact what can be purchased and served to students.
FLORA LICHTMAN: There’s much to unpack regarding ultra-processed foods. Let’s take a short break. When we return, we’ll discuss how ultra-processed foods affect our bodies, our definitions of these foods, and strategies for reducing them in our diets. Stay tuned.
(SINGING) Pizza in the morning, pizza in the evening, pizza at suppertime.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Let’s sift through our snack drawer for a closer look at ultra-processed foods. I’m chatting with Laura Schmidt from UC San Francisco and Alyssa Moran from Penn. Laura, do we have a solid definition of ultra-processed foods?
LAURA SCHMIDT: Certainly! The NOVA classification, developed in Brazil around 2009-2010, represents a paradigm shift in how nutrition scientists view diet and health. It reflects a new understanding of why increased chronic diseases and obesity are prevalent worldwide. A Brazilian scientist, Carlos Monteiro, observed Brazilians increasingly abandoning home-cooked meals for ultra-processed alternatives, leading him to define ultra-processed foods experimentally.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Can you explain the details behind the NOVA classification system?
ALYSSA MORAN: Sure! Ultra-processed foods are defined by their intent in processing. While all food undergoes some form of processing, these items are deliberately engineered by companies to be enticing and addictive. They often contain food dyes for appearance, emulsifiers, and texturizers to enhance texture, all aimed at increasing their appeal and driving sales.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Are there specific ingredients that categorize them as ultra-processed? What tricks do these companies use?
LAURA SCHMIDT: Absolutely. My current research involves analyzing internal industry documents from companies that were historically owned by tobacco firms. These companies understood the impact of sugar and nicotine on our brain’s reward system, allowing them to create foods designed to keep consumers coming back for more.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Food companies often seem to announce their addictive properties in their ads—as we’ve seen in nostalgic commercials.
(SINGING) Once you pop, you can’t stop!
LAURA SCHMIDT: Precisely. Companies operate on profit-driven motives, crafting products to maximize sales.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Alyssa, I’ve noticed some brands labeling their products as non-ultra-processed. What are your thoughts on this trend?
ALYSSA MORAN: It’s interesting. Companies are now defining non-ultra-processed foods in response to global efforts to legitimize the classification of ultra-processed foods for regulatory purposes. Regulatory definitions are crucial for identifying products subject to future regulations.
FLORA LICHTMAN: If legal definitions of ultra-processed foods are established based on specific ingredients, can companies simply reformulate their products to comply?
ALYSSA MORAN: Absolutely. This is a major concern. Scientists and regulators are focusing on defining ultra-processed foods using the NOVA classification system; however, companies could easily reformulate to evade regulations. No regulatory body currently maintains a comprehensive list of all food ingredients, as companies are often free to add new ones without oversight.
FLORA LICHTMAN: That’s surprising!
ALYSSA MORAN: Indeed. Most people don’t realize that U.S. regulations allow companies to self-declare that new ingredients are safe without notifying the FDA, which differs significantly from regulations in other countries.
FLORA LICHTMAN: That’s astounding.
LAURA SCHMIDT: This exemplifies our flawed food system.
ALYSSA MORAN: Recently, the FDA introduced a priority for 2026 known as “grass reform,” indicating interest in requiring companies to notify the FDA of new ingredients in the food supply, potentially leading to more thorough assessments.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Regarding ultra-processed food regulations, would it make more sense to define what isn’t considered ultra-processed?
ALYSSA MORAN: Yes! We’ve proposed defining non-ultra-processed foods and categorizing everything else as ultra-processed. This would include what ingredients are essential for a food to maintain its core identity. By establishing this definition, we can better control for reformulation issues that arise.
FLORA LICHTMAN: What are the health implications of consuming these foods? Do they pose risks to our health? Alyssa?
ALYSSA MORAN: Yes, numerous studies have linked high consumption of ultra-processed foods to chronic illnesses. Evidence from over 10 million individuals reveals connections with obesity, cardiometabolic diseases, and even effects on mental health, such as depression and infertility.
Moreover, nearly 300 studies have explored the addictive potential of these foods, confirming that they are deliberately designed to promote compulsive consumption linked to substance use disorders.
FLORA LICHTMAN: The World Health Organization even classifies processed meats like bacon and sausage as Group 1 carcinogens.
LAURA SCHMIDT: That’s correct.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Given these risks, why do we continue to consume them?
LAURA SCHMIDT: It’s a compelling question. The IARC at WHO has classified glyphosate as a carcinogen, yet it’s widely used on our crops.
FLORA LICHTMAN: We touched on that last week.
LAURA SCHMIDT: Right. Whether it’s the chemicals, the calories, or both, ultra-processed foods contribute to overeating. They’re designed this way—clinical trials have shown that individuals overeat these foods by as much as 500 calories daily, which is equivalent to an additional meal.
Studying the complex interplay of additives, sugars, fats, and unhealthy ingredients is essential as we work to understand the broader implications on health.
FLORA LICHTMAN: So, do we know how processed meats correlate with colorectal cancer? What happens in the body?
LAURA SCHMIDT: Nitrates and chemical additives likely play a significant role, but the sheer volume of additives makes it hard to compile comprehensive studies. Multiple mechanisms may be involved—overeating can promote weight gain, leading to chronic inflammation and insulin resistance, driving chronic disease.
Additionally, ultra-processed foods can disrupt the gut microbiome, which is essential for health.
ALYSSA MORAN: It’s crucial to note that perfect mechanistic knowledge isn’t a prerequisite for regulatory action.
LAURA SCHMIDT: Absolutely.
ALYSSA MORAN: We had many open questions regarding the relationship between cigarettes and cancer before regulatory measures were enacted, yet policies surrounding alcohol and tobacco have effectively reduced consumption and saved lives.
With hundreds of studies linking ultra-processed foods to addiction and chronic illnesses, we have ample evidence to warrant action. The risks of inaction far outweigh any controversies in the scientific community.
LAURA SCHMIDT: Definitely. We already know how to manage such issues, as evidenced by over a century of alcohol regulation.
FLORA LICHTMAN: What actionable steps should be taken? It’s clear that individuals can’t navigate this on their own.
LAURA SCHMIDT: Agreed! It’s straightforward, and we have methods that can be implemented. Many countries tax alcohol—why not consider similar strategies for sugar-sweetened beverages? The only barrier to achieving a healthier food environment is the will of policymakers.
ALYSSA MORAN: I completely concur. The successful strategies applied to tobacco and alcohol can be adapted for ultra-processed foods. However, we also need viable alternatives since everyone requires food. Thus, we need policies encouraging access to minimally processed, home-cooked meals.
Moreover, schools—which serve a significant number of children’s meals—require investment. Currently, federal reimbursement rates for meals served are insufficient, discouraging them from offering healthier options.
We have to prioritize investments in schools to enable them to serve healthier products to children.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Speaking of which, is that large glass of wine I plan to enjoy tonight considered ultra-processed?
LAURA SCHMIDT: Yes, I regret to say it is.
ALYSSA MORAN: It might be.
FLORA LICHTMAN: Laura Schmidt is a professor at UC San Francisco’s Institute for Health Policy Studies, and Alyssa Moran is a deputy director at the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at Penn. Thank you both for joining us today.
LAURA SCHMIDT: Thank you!
ALYSSA MORAN: Thanks for having us!
FLORA LICHTMAN: This enlightening episode was produced by Annette Heist. If you’re a fan of Science Friday (and we hope you are!), please consider leaving a review on your preferred podcast platform. If there are any aspects of this discussion we didn’t explore, feel free to reach us at 877-4-SciFri. Thank you for tuning in. Until next time, I’m Flora Lichtman.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Copyright © 2026 Science Friday Initiative. All rights reserved. Science Friday transcripts are produced on a tight deadline by 3Play Media. Fidelity to the original aired/published audio or video file might vary, and text might be updated or amended in the future. For the authoritative record of Science Friday’s programming, please visit the original aired/published recording. For terms of use and more information, visit our policies pages at http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/policies/
