A new study from researchers at the Global Food Research Program at UNC-Chapel Hill and The George Institute for Global Health highlights how deeply ultra-processed foods (UPFs) dominate grocery purchases in the United States and how these patterns vary by race, income, and education level. 

Using nationally representative data from the NielsenIQ Homescan Consumer Panel, researchers examined more than 33 million packaged food and beverage purchases from 2020 across nearly 60,000 U.S. households. Each purchased item was classified using the Nova food processing system, which identifies foods based on their level of industrial processing. 

“Our findings show that almost half of all packaged food purchases and over one-third of beverage purchases were ultra-processed,” said Barry Popkin, PhD, co-author and W.R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Nutrition at UNC-Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. “This has serious implications for public health, given the strong links between UPF consumption and chronic, nutrition-related diseases like obesity, cancer, and heart disease.” 

The study found that certain food categories were overwhelmingly ultra-processed: 90% of carbonated soft drinks, 81% of mixed dishes and soups, and 71% of sweets and snacks fell into the UPF category. These three categories made up 36% of total purchases. Meanwhile, minimally processed categories like fruits, vegetables, nuts, and oils made up only a small fraction of overall purchases at 12%. 

Importantly, disparities were observed across socioeconomic groups. Households with lower incomes and lower education levels purchased a higher proportion of UPFs compared to higher-income, higher-education households. Race and ethnicity also played a role, with non-Hispanic White households purchasing a significantly higher proportion of UPFs than Black, Hispanic, or other race/ethnic groups. 

“Understanding these purchasing patterns is crucial for shaping effective food policies,” said Elizabeth Dunford, PhD, lead author of the study and researcher at The George Institute and UNC-Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. “Policies that aim to reduce ultra-processed food consumption must take into account how access, marketing, and affordability impact different communities.” 

The findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions that address not just high levels of nutrients like sugar, sodium, or saturated fat in the food supply, but also the level of food processing. Current U.S. dietary guidelines focus on nutrient-dense foods but do not make recommendations based on food processing levels, unlike emerging guidelines in some other countries. 

“This research reinforces that we need a shift toward promoting less processed food options and reducing the market dominance of ultra-processed products,” Popkin said. “Without it, diet-related health disparities are likely to persist or even widen.” 

The study, “Exploring disparities in the proportion of ultra-processed foods and beverages purchased in grocery stores by US households in 2020,” is now available in Public Health Nutrition. 

---

This study was funded primarily by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

AUTHORS

Barry M. Popkin
Donna R. Miles
Elizabeth K. Dunford

---

Read the full study in Public Health Nutrition

---

Learn more about ultra-processed foods and the Nova classification system in our fact sheet:

---

MORE GFRP RESEARCH ON ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS

New study charts policy path to identifying ultra-processed foods and beverages high in nutrients of concern
Read more…

---

Ultra-processed products make up nearly half of low-income South African adults’ diets
Read more…

Chilean food supply sees substantial decreases in sugar, sodium, and saturated fat after front-of-package warning labels required on “high in” foods and drinks

A new study published this week in BMC Medicine examining changes in Chile’s packaged food supply under the country’s mandatory front-of-package warning label law finds sweeping product reformulation to contain less sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and calories. The amount of foods and drinks in Chilean stores that would need “high in” nutrient warning labels dropped from 71% before the law in 2015–2016 to 53% after the law’s third and most strict phase went into effect in 2020.

While the proportion of “high in” products and content of concerning nutrients decreased across all food and beverage categories, researchers saw the greatest reductions in sodium in savory foods and sugars in sweet foods and beverages. Changes in products’ saturated fat content were smaller; however, researchers did find a 20+ percentage point decrease in the proportion of nuts, snacks, and savory spreads requiring warning labels for high saturated fat content. They also found a greater than 20 percentage point drop in savory baked products, breakfast cereals, and savory spreads requiring “high in calories” warning labels.

“We know that before this law, there were almost no significant nutritional improvements in the packaged food supply,” said the study’s first author Natalia Rebolledo, PhD, assistant professor of nutrition at the University of Chile’s Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology. “We also know that voluntary labeling policies have produced minimal changes in product formulation. This study underscores how much more effective a mandatory warning label regulation can be.”

This study highlights one of several ways that front-of-package warning labels work to improve population nutrition: by encouraging the food industry to offer healthier products. Companies wishing to avoid adding warning labels to their packages have an incentive to reduce sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and calorie density in their products. Indeed, this study found that product changes increased as the regulation’s nutritional thresholds tightened with each phase.

Additionally, warning labels nudge consumers towards healthier options or portion sizes as they’re shopping or making food choices at home, and in Chile, the labels are also linked to companion policies that restrict marketing to children and ban sales or promotion in schools for any product with a warning label.

To track changes in the food supply, researchers at the University of Chile photographed thousands of packaged food and beverage products from supermarkets in Santiago, Chile every year from 2015 and 2020. They worked with researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to record nutrition facts panel information for these products, then analyzed how their nutritional profiles changed as the three increasingly strict phases of the Chilean labeling law came into effect.

This study is the latest in a series of policy evaluations showing improvements in the nutritional quality of Chilean’s food purchases, changes in social norms and knowledge around foods and drinks with warning labels, and significant drops in children’s exposure to harmful food marketing. Chile now serves as a model for countries aiming to combat high and rising rates of obesity and other nutrition-related diseases by improving the food environment.

---

This research was supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies at part of the Food Policy Program, with additional support from INTA-UNC, INFORMAS, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and the ANID/Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico-FONDECYT Postdoctorado.

STUDY 1 AUTHORS

Natalia Rebolledo
Pedro Ferrer-Rosende
Marcela Reyes
Lindsey Smith Taillie
Camila Corvalán

---

Read more in BMC Medicine

---

MORE RESEARCH FROM CHILE:

Chileans bought less sugar, salt, saturated fat, and calories at the grocery store after trailblazing warning label law, with high compliance from the food industry Read more…

---

Products changed, but not prices, under Chile’s Law of Food Labeling and Advertising Read more…

---

Children in Chile saw 73% fewer TV ads for unhealthy foods and drinks following trailblazing marketing restrictions Read more…

---

After Chile’s labeling and marketing law, drink purchases contained less sugar and more non-nutritive sweeteners, but overall sweetness stayed the same Read more…

---

Study finds no negative economic impact from Chilean food labeling and advertising law Read more…

Two new studies from researchers at the University of Chile and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have added to the evidence that Chile’s front-of-package nutrient warning labels are an effective way to nudge shoppers towards healthier food choices.

The first, published in PLOS Medicine, evaluated Chileans’ grocery purchases during Phase 2 of Chile’s warning label law and found that households bought 37% less sugar, 22% less sodium, 16% less saturated fat and 23% fewer total calories from products with warning labels.

The second study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, found that food and beverage companies in Chile have largely complied with the country’s front-of-package warning label law: In the final and most nutritionally strict phase of the law, researchers found that 94% of products required to carry front-of-package warning labels to indicate high content of sugar, saturated fat, sodium, or calories actually had the appropriate labels on their packages in stores.

Purchase changes

To estimate how Chileans’ shopping choices changed after Phase 2 of the law, researchers at the University of Chile and UNC-Chapel Hill compared data on actual purchases — gathered from 2,844 households in Chile from 2013 to 2019 — to hypothetical food purchases had the law not gone into effect (modeled based on pre-policy trends). Each product in the dataset was profiled by trained nutritionists for nutritional content and ingredients, then categorized as either having or not having a warning label requirement under Chile’s law. They then calculated the differences between the nutritional profile of what purchases were actually made vs. the profile of the expected purchases without a labeling law.

While decreases in purchases of targeted nutrients were partially offset by increases in purchases from products without warning labels, the total change seen across all purchases with and without warning labels was still a significant improvement from pre-policy. Compared to expected purchases had the law not been implemented, Chileans bought 20% less sugar, 14% less sodium, 10% less saturated fat and 8% fewer total calories overall.

For calories and sugar, decreases were the greatest among beverage purchases, including 54% fewer calories bought from warning-labeled drinks. Food purchases, on the other hand, had greater decreases in sodium and saturated fat.

“Our findings confirm what we saw in the earliest phase of the law — that people bought less of the concerning nutrients targeted by warning labels — but we can also see now that these changes were even more pronounced in Phase 2,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, associate professor of nutrition at UNC-Chapel Hill and the study’s first author. “This tells us that the healthy shifts Chileans made in their shopping habits were maintained or even improved more over time.”

Researchers also found that decreases in purchases of targeted nutrients were very similar across different socioeconomic groups, suggesting that Chile’s policy did not disproportionately advantage or disadvantage any one group.

Food industry compliance

To measure whether food and beverage companies in Chile were complying with warning label law, researchers at the University Of Chile’s Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology reviewed a set of nearly 10,000 products available in supermarkets in Chile during 2020. They identified which products should have a warning label based on their nutritional content (i.e., if they contained added sugars, sodium, or saturated fat and exceeded set nutrient or calorie limits), then observed whether each package requiring warning labels actually displayed them.

Researchers found that 63% of Chile’s packaged food supply had warning labels, with the two most common labels being “high in energy” (found on 39% of products) and “high in sugars” (on 35% of products). A similar portion of products had one warning label (23%), two labels (20%), or three labels (20%), but only 0.5% of products featured all four warning labels.

They also found that compliance was high — 93% for products requiring warning labels for being high in saturated fat, sodium, or energy and 96% for products requiring a high in sugar warning. Two specific food groups stood out for having lower compliance with the labeling law: non-sausage meat products (e.g., hamburgers) with 84% compliance and soups with 85% compliance.

High industry compliance with this mandatory front-of-package labeling law compared to low uptake of voluntary labeling programs such as Health Star Rating labels (found on only 36% of products in Australia and 30% of products in New Zealand) highlights the strength of mandatory labelling policies.

“Our study’s findings show that food industry is able to make changes to their front-of-package labels when this is mandated by the government and there are clear implementation and monitoring guidelines,” said the study’s first author Natalia Rebolledo, PhD, assistant professor of nutrition at the University of Chile’s Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology. “Continuous monitoring is essential for the success of these policies.”

Proliferation of policies

Chile’s trailblazing 2016 food policy package requiring black “stop sign” warning labels on foods and beverages high in nutrients of health concern ignited rapid adoption of eight similar policies throughout the Americas, with more labels currently under development around the world. The country’s innovative law also featured the world’s most comprehensive national restrictions on food marketing to children and banned the sale or promotion of products with warning labels in schools. Other countries have followed suit by incorporating some of these policy elements into their own laws. For example, Mexico followed Chile’s lead when it implemented similar front-of-package nutrient warnings in 2019 and forbid the use of child-appealing characters on packages with warning labels.

These studies are the latest in a series of evaluations that show how the country’s policy package led to improvements in the nutritional quality of Chile’s food supply, changes in social norms and knowledge around foods and drinks with warning labels, and significant drops in children’s exposure to harmful food marketing — all achieved without negative impacts on product prices or employment and wages. Chile’s approach now serves as a model for other countries aiming to improve the food environment to support better population nutrition and health.

Policymakers, health advocates, and researchers in Chile also continue to build on their successes with new interventions to improve public health. In July 2024, the country began requiring warning labels on alcoholic beverages that disclose calorie counts and warn consumers not to drink while driving, if pregnant, or if under 18 years of age. This law will be complemented by advertising restrictions beginning in 2026. In the past year, researchers also piloted a program that will provide low-income Chileans with funds to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables from local neighborhood markets, both supporting the local economy and increasing access to healthier food options.

“We believe that Chile needs to continue leading the efforts for promoting healthier diets,” said Camila Corvalán, MD, PhD, professor of public nutrition at the University of Chile’s Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology and principal investigator of both studies. “This requires advancing the implementation of other food environment policies that discourage the consumption of ultra-processed foods but also support families — especially those with higher vulnerability — in accessing natural foods for example through fruits and vegetable subsidies.”

---

This research was supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies at part of the Food Policy Program, with additional support from INTA-UNC, INFORMAS, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (Fondecyt Regular and Fondecyt Postdoctorado).

STUDY 1 AUTHORS

Lindsey Smith Taillie
Maxime Bercholz
Barry Popkin
Natalia Rebolledo
Marcela Reyes
Camila Corvalán

---

Read more in PLOS Medicine

---

STUDY 2 AUTHORS

Natalia Rebolledo
Pedro Ferrer-Rosende
Marcela Reyes
Lindsey Smith Taillie
Camila Corvalán

---

Read more in the American Journal of Public Health

---

MORE RESEARCH FROM CHILE:

Products changed, but not prices, under Chile’s Law of Food Labeling and Advertising Read more…

---

Children in Chile saw 73% fewer TV ads for unhealthy foods and drinks following trailblazing marketing restrictions Read more…

---

After Chile’s labeling and marketing law, drink purchases contained less sugar and more non-nutritive sweeteners, but overall sweetness stayed the same Read more…

---

Study finds no negative economic impact from Chilean food labeling and advertising law Read more…

A new study from researchers at the Global Food Research Program at UNC-Chapel Hill and The George Institute for Global Health provides guidance for policymakers on how to identify ultra-processed foods and beverages that are also high in salt, sugar, saturated fat, or calorie-dense for regulation.

To date, food policies aimed at improving population nutrition and health have targeted foods and drinks based primarily on their nutritional profile — that is, energy-dense products high in nutrients such as sugar, sodium, or saturated or trans fats have been subject to regulations such as taxes, marketing restrictions, or front-of-package warning labels. With concern mounting over the many health harms associated with high intake of ultra-processed foods, scholars and policymakers have begun exploring how these nutrition-focused policies could target products based on degree of processing.

“Researchers in this area typically use the detailed Nova Classification criteria to identify ultra-processed products in food consumption surveys, but regulatory bodies need a simpler, more objective way to identify ultra-processed food, and ideally one that can be applied globally,” said Barry Popkin, PhD, W.R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Nutrition at the UNC Gillings Global School of Public Health, co-director of the Global Food Research Program, and the study’s first author.

For this study, researchers compared different methods for policies to identify products that are ultra-processed and/or high in fat, sugar and/or sodium (HFSS). They used one of the objective dimension of Nova Classification: whether a product’s ingredients list includes one or more additives from 12 Codex classes which are thought to enhance hyper-palatability and are considered markers of ultra-processing. These classes include hundreds of different additives used in food processing and included in product ingredient lists. Researchers tested the ability of four different profiling approaches combining different groups of these additives with the “high in fat, sodium, sugar, or calories” (HFSS) criteria from Chile’s nutrient profiling model to capture products that were both ultra-processed and HFSS. These profiling approaches include:

1. HFSS + contains non-nutritive sweeteners
2. HFSS + contains colors/flavors
3. HFSS + non-nutritive sweeteners + colors/flavors (combination of approaches 1 & 2)
4. HFSS + 12 Codex classes of additives (flavor enhancers, colors, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents)

Researchers applied these four approaches on a sample of over 33 million food products purchased by a representative sample of roughly 60,000 US consumers in 2020. They found that scenario 4 was most effective, under which 100% of product purchases considered ultra-processed foods under Nova Classification would be targeted for policy intervention. In addition, their findings demonstrate that policies could achieve comparable results using a more streamlined profiling model that simply combines Codex colors and flavors with HFSS criteria, which missed only 1% of ultra-processed products.

Notably, if a policy intervention such as mandatory front-of-package warning labels or restrictions on marketing used this approach, nearly 75% of products purchased by U.S. households would be subject to regulation. This highlights the predominance of foods and drinks that do not build health in the US food supply.

This study is the first to show how to operationalize healthy food policies aimed at reducing ultra-processed product consumption using the ingredients list on food packages and can help inform policymakers as they design healthy food regulations such as front of package warnings, marketing restrictions, and taxes on ultra-processed products.

These findings are timely given increasing interest in and momentum behind policies targeting ultra-processed foods. A large-scale “umbrella” review published in the British Medical Journal last month highlighted the imperative to act, finding that exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with 32 different health risks related to mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes.

“Countries around the world are currently trying to figure out how to best guide consumers away from ultra-processed foods and towards more whole or minimally processed options, whether that’s via updated dietary guidelines or policies that will incentivize purchase changes and protect consumers from harm,” said Popkin. “Our findings give policymakers one of the tools they need to implement effective policies towards this end.”

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is currently considering options for a front-of-package warning label, which under the current proposal would be applied only to products that contain more than 20% of certain nutrients’ recommended daily intake per serving. “Our study suggests that the FDA needs to go beyond looking at nutrients per serving and include profiling for Codex classes of additives, which number in the hundreds,” said Popkin.

---

This study was funding primarily by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

AUTHORS

Barry M. Popkin
Donna R. Miles
Lindsey Smith Taillie
Elizabeth K. Dunford

---

Read the full study in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas.

---

Learn more about ultra-processed foods and the Nova classification system in our fact sheet:

Despite extensive product reformulation after Chile began requiring warning labels on the front of less-healthy food and drink packages, Chilean consumers saw no significant change in food and beverage prices associated with the policy in the first year and a half. This was the main finding of a new study from researchers at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Universidad de Chile, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that examined price changes after the Law of Food Labeling and Advertising took effect in 2016.

After Chile began mandating warning labels on products high in calorie density or added sugars, salt, or saturated fat, some food and beverage manufacturers changed the nutritional composition of their products to avoid the label requirement. These reformulations could have led to changes in product prices in two ways, according to first author Guillermo Paraje, professor of economics at the Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez in Chile: “Reformulation could have increased firms’ costs, leading to higher prices if companies passed on the cost to consumers. Additionally, consumers may have been attracted to reformulated products without warning labels, increasing their demand and hence, their prices.”

Researchers compared prices of products with and without warning labels to a control group of products that remained unregulated (did not require warning labels) throughout the study period. They used pricing information from a large database containing prices for packaged food purchases from over 2,500 households from January 2014 to December 2017 (before and after the labeling law took effect). A team of trained nutritionists reviewed and categories all the purchased products by regulation status, i.e., whether they would be required to carry one or more warning labels. Researchers then analyzed changes before and after the law began in both levels and trends of absolute prices using the Laspeyres Price Index.

They found no significant change in prices of labeled products relative to unlabeled products. Rather, prices for both product groups continued to follow their pre-regulatory trends or changed in similar ways following the law. Researchers also compared these price changes within different “shopping baskets” or preferred foods and drinks for different socio-economic groups, and similarly found no significant differences in price changes.

“A common argument we hear from industry is that regulations like this are too costly and hurt consumers and the economy,” said senior author Barry Popkin, W. R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Nutrition at UNC-Chapel Hill. “We see here that Chile’s law did not lead to more expensive prices on healthier options, and we’ve seen in previous studies that there was no impact on employment or wages.”

This study adds to a growing body of evidence on the impacts of Chile’s Law of Food Labeling and Advertising, which in addition to requiring front-of-package warning labels also restricts marketing for unhealthy foods and bans their sale or promotion in schools. For example, previous research has found that the policy package was associated with decreased calories, sugar, sodium and saturated fat purchased from regulated foods and drinks as well as significant drops in children’s exposure to TV advertising for regulated products. More long-term evaluations of the fully implemented regulation are expected in the coming year.

---

This research was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

AUTHORS

Guillermo R Paraje
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez

Daniela Victoria Lucía Montes de Oca Carreño
Universidad de Chile

Camila Corvalán
Universidad de Chile

Barry M Popkin
UNC-Chapel Hill

---

EVALUATIONS OF PRODUCT REFORMULATION IN CHILE

Changes in the amount of nutrient of packaged foods and beverages after the initial implementation of the Chilean Law of Food Labelling and Advertising: A nonexperimental prospective study Read more…

---

Changes in the use of non-nutritive sweeteners in the Chilean food and beverage supply after implementation of the Food Labeling and Advertising Law Read more…

A new study in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has found that 60% of foods purchased by Americans contain technical food additives such as coloring or flavoring agents, preservatives, or sweeteners. This represents a 10% increase since 2001. Manufacturers have also increased the average number of additives in purchased food and beverage products from 3.7 in 2001 to 4.5 in 2019. These findings indicate that prevalence of food additives is on the rise.

While food additives can extend shelf life and improve palatability, their health consequences are not fully understood, though mounting evidence points to high intake of ultra-processed foods — which often contain multiple additives — is connected to a multitude of health risks. Assessing food-additive exposure over time is a vital step in understanding its role in nutrition-related diseases, negative changes to the gut microbiome, and other adverse health outcomes associated with ultra-processed foods.

“Our research clearly shows that the proportion of ultra-processed foods with additives in Americans’ shopping carts increased significantly between 2001 and 2019. We observed this trend across all food and additive categories,” noted lead investigator Elizabeth K. Dunford, PhD, Food Policy Division, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, and Department of Nutrition, Gillings Global School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.

By 2019, more than half of the overall packaged food and beverage products bought by U.S. households contained three or more additives. Furthermore, and perhaps most concerning, a 22% higher percentage of baby food purchases were ultra-processed and contained additives. “These findings give us reason for concern, given the growing evidence linking high consumption of processed foods with adverse health outcomes,” noted Dr. Dunford, adding that the investigators observed one positive trend, a decrease in the use of added flavors in carbonated soft drinks.

U.S. consumers purchase more than 400,000 different packaged food and beverage products each year at grocery stores, with new products constantly being added to shelves. Increased ultra-processed foods means that Americans are consuming more sugar, sodium, and saturated fats.

“With manufacturers producing foods and beverages with an increasingly higher number of additives, it is more important than ever to understand what is in the foods that Americans are buying and eating,” commented the study’s senior investigator, Barry Popkin, PhD, W.R. Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor, Department of Nutrition, Gillings Global School of Public Health, and the Carolina Population Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.

“U.S. consumers are demanding a much higher level of transparency from brands and retailers than in previous years. We hope the findings from this study will be used to inform policymakers on where Americans – especially babies – are being exposed to additives, and how the packaged food supply is changing,” Dr. Popkin said.

This is the first study to examine what U.S. consumers are purchasing – rather than relying on reported food and beverage intake – to evaluate exposure to food additives in ultra-processed foods, which is essential for assessing their role in the associated adverse health risks. The investigators used Nielsen Homescan Consumer Panel data from 2001 and 2019 to examine the proportion of products purchased by U.S. households containing four common technical food additives (colors, flavors, preservatives, and nonnutritive sweeteners) and to ascertain whether purchases have changed over time through the products’ scanned Nutrition Facts Panels. Previous research had been hampered by the lack of publicly available ingredient databases identifying and quantifying top additives in U.S. foods.

“The findings from this study could be used to inform policymakers on where American consumers are getting an increasing number of additives and how the packaged food supply is changing. The results can also set the foundation for future work in this area and provide direction for future researchers,” added Dr. Dunford. “At a minimum, I hope this work leads to further investigation into the types and amounts of ingredients being used in the manufacturing of baby food products.”

An accompanying editorial by Mona S. Calvo, PhD, and Jaime Uribarri, MD, of The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NY, New York, USA, cites the study’s contributions, “By providing data on exposure to food additives in ultra-processed foods found in grocery-purchased foods over time, Dr. Dunford’s team is leading the way with much-needed research. Their novel method enabled them to document food additive-exposure changes over time and by food and additive category,” said Dr. Calvo.

Dr. Uribarri added, “Most importantly, the authors’ unique approach enabled exposure estimates in the understudied, vulnerable populations of infants and children.”

Please refer to the detailed media release from the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for more information about this study and additional resources.

---

Funding for this study came primarily from Arnold Ventures, with additional support from the National Institutes of Health.

Read the full article in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (full text available free for 30 days).

---

RESOURCES

Learn more about ultra-processed foods, their health risks, and policy approaches to curb consumption.