Big Food has been trying to weather increasing evidence that UPFs cause harm. We think we’re beyond the tipping point – UPFs are slowly killing those who depend on them for sustenance – it’s a Big Tobacco moment for Big Food. By Rob Verkerk PhD, founder, executive & scientific director If you’re reading this, chances are you already try to avoid ultra-processed foods (UPFs), recognizing UPFs contain ingredients you wouldn’t want in your own kitchen. But many of your friends, family, and wider networks may not be in the same place—and crucially, may still believe that the science is “uncertain.” That’s because Big Food has spent many years trying to defend its position to use these ingredients and has ploughed vast sums into research and marketing, a chunk of which has been used to justify its position. But that position is increasingly hard to defend—as we aim to show in this article, using some of the most prominent systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in mainstream, high-impact scientific journals.Where we are today—something I hope to justify below—is that we’ve arrived at a Big Tobacco moment for Big Food—the same playbook, different story and era.  When you can no longer hide from the science A pivotal shift came in 2025 when the highly influential peer-reviewed journal, The Lancet, published an article by Monteiro et al. along with 12 linked articles. In their opener for the series, Professor Carlos A Monteiro, MD and colleagues from the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, set out three biologically plausible mechanisms by which UPFs may drive harm: Disruption of appetite regulation, leading to overconsumption Direct biological effects of additives, altered food structures, and production of harmful byproducts Systematic displacement of health-promoting, minimally processed, protective foods What we’re beginning to see now is a converging causal framework for how UPFs represent a classic slow-kill mechanism that underpins most of the chronic disease we see in industrialized societies that steals years and quality from lives, and threatens to overrun health systems. Engineered to override satiety Among the most compelling experimental evidence comes from a tightly controlled inpatient trial led by NIH researcher Kevin Hall. Participants consuming an ultra-processed diet ate ~500 kcal/day more and gained weight compared with those on a minimally processed diet—despite meals being matched for calories, sugar, fat, and fiber (Hall et al 2019). This isn’t about someone’s willpower. It’s about design—foods designed to be addictive that create dependence. Texture, energy density, and hyper-palatability appear to bypass normal satiety signaling—directly supporting Monteiro’s first hypothesis. The epidemiology is now overwhelming Among the strongest syntheses of evidence to date comes from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 observational studies (including nearly 900,000 subjects) examining UPFs and chronic disease outcomes published by Lane et al 2021 in the peer-reviewed journal, Obesity Reviews. The findings were striking: Higher UPF intake was associated with increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality Associations persisted across populations and study designs Even allowing for residual confounding, the scale and reproducibility of these findings make dismissal increasingly untenable. In case anyone is still in any doubt, a very recent meta-analysis and systematic review by Liang et al (2025) published in Systematic Reviews including 18 studies involving over 1 million subjects (and over 173,000 deaths), showed unequivocally that those who consumed the most UPFs had a 15% increase in risk of death from all causes.  Sorry, Big Food, you can no longer hide from the evidence that it’s UPFs that make-up over half the total energy consumed by populations in the US and UK (here and here), are killing consumers of its products slowly, but surely. More to the point, the risks are dose dependent—so any effort to eat less of it moves your risk profile in the right direction.    From pre-cradle to old age The problem is akin to a ticking time bomb. We have yet to see the full age spectrum of industrialized societies exposed to UPFs from pre-conception to death. What we know for sure is that young people are eating more of the stuff than older folk, and that should be a big wake-up call for individuals, families, and health authorities. The data also show that it’s the middle income groups that consume the most, not the poorest, this likely reflecting the relatively high cost of many UPFs.  The science is increasingly revealing that harms are not confined to any one life stage—they impact people across the lifespan: Children and adolescents: High UPF consumption is linked to increased adiposity, poorer metabolic health, and emerging links to mental health outcomes. Early exposure may also shape lifelong food preferences (Lane et al 2021) Older adults: Recent evidence links higher UPF intake with frailty, cognitive decline, and increased mortality risk, suggesting acceleration of biological ageing (Shahatah et al 2025)But, that’s not all. UPFs have also been tied to reducing fertility, elevated risks during pregnancy and development of fetuses and infants. Emerging research suggests UPFs may impair hormonal regulation, metabolic signaling, and fertility outcomes, including in males (Paula et al, 2022; Evans et al 2025; Preston et al 2025). While still developing, this aligns with known effects of metabolic dysfunction and inflammation on reproductive biology. During pregnancy, the risks extend further. Maternal UPF intake has been linked to excess gestational weight gain and altered fetal development trajectories, raising concerns about long-term metabolic programming in offspring (Paula et al, 2022; Morales-Suarez-Varela & Rocha-Velasco 2025).  As shown in a comprehensive review by Rondinella et al 2025, common UPF components—particularly emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, and other additives in UPFs—can: Disrupt microbiome diversity Damage the intestinal barrier Promote systemic inflammation This provides a biologically coherent explanation linking UPFs to chronic disease pathways—from metabolic disorders to neurodegeneration.This is not just about individual health or the choices, informed or otherwise, of the individual—what parents and young people are eating will likely also influence the health of the next generation. Coming back to the story of Big Tobacco, we learned that the industry “got away with it” up until it was no longer feasible for its leaders to deny causation. Now, with Big Food and its addictive UPFs, we see a similar progression: the increasing evidence of consistency of effects across the entire life course is really beginning to bolster the case for causality. UPF manufacture generates killer chemicals Critics are right: not all processing is harmful. Fermentation, freezing, and cooking can enhance nutrition and safety. But ultra-processing is different. It involves fractionation and recombination of food components, technological additives designed to mimic real food, and structural changes that alter digestion and absorption. As Prof. Monteiro and colleagues propose in their second hypothesis, UPF manufacture may often also involve application of extreme heat or other technological processes that induce reactions that in turn yield new by-products. This generates chemicals that were not in the original foodthat are associated with increased inflammation, neurotoxicity, and cancer risk.   Even when adjusting for overall diet quality, studies continue to find independent associations between UPF intake and adverse health outcomes. This suggests that UPFs are not merely markers of unhealthy diets—they are likely contributors to harm in their own right. Time for honesty and accountability—not ‘healthwashing’ The food industry has long argued that “there are no bad foods, only bad diets.” That argument is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Big Food’s response? “Healthwashing.”Despite the growing body of negative scientific findings, food manufacturers, like their tobacco counterparts of yesteryear, are becoming increasingly adept at marketing ultra-processed products as part of a healthy lifestyle. Labels such as “high protein”, “low fat”, “gut friendly” or “plant-based” can create a powerful halo effect, even when the product remains highly processed. Social media has amplified this phenomenon. Influencers, including celebrities and sports personalities, are frequently paid to promote food and drink products, blurring the line between genuine advice and advertising. The result is a digital landscape in which ultra-processed foods are not only normalized but actively positioned as desirable wellness choices. At a systems level, there is a need to rebuild shorter, more transparent food chains that reconnect producers and consumers. Supporting regenerative agriculture, local food networks, and independent producers can play an important role in shifting the balance away from industrialized food systems. This is where we, as consumers, can play a powerful role in creating change in our food landscape by changing what we buy and where we buy from.Policy change is equally critical. This includes developing more robust and meaningful ways to classify food, strengthening oversight of health claims—particularly in digital spaces—and investing in independent research that is free from commercial influence. Time to reclaim real food The debate around ultra-processed foods is both necessary and timely. But if it is to lead to meaningful change, it must move beyond simplistic narratives and address the deeper forces shaping our food system. It’s time for people to engage, question and advocate for a more holistic approach—one that values real food, informed choice, and transparency at every level. Because ultimately, improving public health is not just about avoiding certain categories of food, but about rebuilding a system that truly nourishes both people and planet. We cannot win this one without education. People have to know what they’re putting into their bodies and be cognizant of the ‘healthwashing’ that Big Food uses in its marketing, advertising and labelling. Next we need to vote with our pockets – the message is a simple one: avoid UPFs most of the time.  Those wanting to go minimal-UPF or UPF-free need to focus on eating whole foods and ingredients that can be recognized as foods. If you want some help, a great starting point is our book Reset Eating: Reset your health and resilience by turning what and how you eat into powerful medicine and our Food4Health Guide within. Find out more below. >>> Discover Reset Eating from the ANH team, your science-based guide to healthy, UPF-free eating that supports balanced nutrition—whatever your dietary preferences. >>> For more information on using unprocessed ingredients for healthy UPF-free eating check out our Food4Health guide. For kids under 6, see our Food4Kids guide.The post Ultra-Processed Foods Are Killing Us Slowly: Why Big Food Can No Longer Ignore the Science first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A looming FDA rule could overhaul how everyday ingredients are regarded by the agency —putting thousands of supplements and natural products at risk of disappearing behind regulatory red tape. Action Alert! THE TOPLINE A new FDA rule on the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) system is under review, and could significantly change how ingredients are allowed to enter the marketplace—potentially affecting access to thousands of supplements and food ingredients. The proposal would likely require mandatory FDA notification for all GRAS determinations, ending “self-GRAS,” which could increase transparency but also overwhelm the agency and create major backlogs. Eliminating self-GRAS—the approach Secretary Kennedy has HHS Secretary has consistently reiterated—could restrict access to safe, natural ingredients and stifle innovation. Reform should focus on transparency and risk-based oversight—not a burdensome pre-approval system. An update to the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) framework is around the corner. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reportedly scheduled a meeting for April 20, 2026, to review a proposed rule that could significantly reshape how GRAS determinations are handled in the United States. It may sound very “in the weeds” to be talking about GRAS. But what’s at stake is your access to thousands of safe, health-promoting ingredients; if we get the wrong kind of GRAS reform, they could disappear in the churn of a bureaucratic approval system. (For background on what GRAS is and how we got here, and how we think reform could be done in ways that work for everyone other than those selling harmful ingredients, you can check out our white paper.) At this stage, full details of the rule have not been released, but we must stay vigilant and engaged to make sure the rule promotes transparency and supports consumer access to safe, natural ingredients, rather than installing additional bureaucratic red tape that eliminates supplement access. What the Proposed Rule May Do The proposed rule would require mandatory submission of GRAS notices to the FDA, effectively ending the practice of “self-affirmed GRAS” determinations that are not disclosed to the agency. (As we’ve explained in previous coverage, self-affirmed GRAS, or “self-GRAS”, is when a company independently concludes an ingredient is GRAS without FDA notification.) Certain substances will be exempt from this requirement—namely, those already listed as GRAS by regulation or those that have already received an FDA “no questions” letter. The FDA would also maintain and update a public-facing inventory of GRAS notices, providing greater visibility into which substances are being used and on what basis they have been deemed safe. The rule is also expected to clarify how the FDA determines that a substance is not GRAS, an area that has long lacked clear procedural guidance. Problems With the Rule At first glance, some of this sounds like the kind of transparency reform for which ANH has long advocated. But abolishing the self-GRAS pathway would be a huge mistake, as we outlined in our white paper last year. Depending on how it’s done, abolishing the self-GRAS pathway creates more problems than it solves. Consider the fact that there are currently an estimated 10,000+ ingredients on the market today that are self-GRAS, many of them perfectly safe and natural supplement ingredients. If all of these are going to be forced through a mandatory FDA approval system, the agency would be overwhelmed, creating years, if not decades, of regulatory backlog. Worse, this kind of blanket approach would likely sweep safe, beneficial ingredients off the market alongside risky ones, reducing consumer access to health-promoting products and potentially harming public health. It would also stifle innovation, particularly for smaller companies that rely on the flexibility of self-GRAS to bring new ingredients to market. The issue is not the GRAS pathway itself, but the lack of transparency. The public and independent scientists should be able to review the data underlying self-GRAS determinations. But rather than creating a pre-approval regime, reform should focus on shining light on GRAS determinations and prioritizing enforcement against ingredients that pose a demonstrated risk. >>>Read ANH’s GRAS Reform White Paper Creating another de facto pre-approval system undermines the original purpose of the GRAS pathway: to streamline the introduction of safe ingredients, including many natural ingredients, into food. Reform Done Right There is broad agreement that the GRAS system needs reform. The current lack of transparency allows for potential abuse, and the public deserves greater visibility. But eliminating self-GRAS entirely would “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” removing a pathway that has enabled the development of many safe and beneficial products. ANH has outlined a better path forward in its white paper, Reforming GRAS: Food Safety Without Sacrifice, which proposes a tiered, risk-based approach to ingredient review. This model would focus regulatory resources where they are most needed while preserving access and innovation. Waiting for the Details The upcoming OMB meeting signals that change is imminent. But until the proposed rule is formally released, key questions remain unanswered. Will the FDA strike the right balance between transparency and access? Or will it move closer to the burdensome, pre-approval frameworks being pushed in Congress? For now, the only responsible position is cautious optimism—tempered by vigilance. We will continue to monitor developments closely and provide updates as more information becomes available. Action Alert! The post GRAS Reform on the Horizon: What We Know—and What We Don’t first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Momentum is building behind the Arizona Statement—and now, ANH founder Rob Verkerk, PhD, is making the case directly in a powerful new video. His message is clear: this is a rare moment when real structural change is within reach—but only if the public shows up. The forces that have sidelined prevention for decades aren’t going to step aside quietly. They respond to pressure. They respond to numbers. They respond to you. If you believe Americans deserve access to the full spectrum of safe, effective health options, this is the moment to act. >>>Sign the Arizona Statement Add your name, and please share this widely in your networks. Let’s tip the balance together. The post The Window for Change Is Open—Don’t Sit This One Out first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.