More than 60% of Americans believe ultraprocessed foods are addictive and pose major health threats—a striking consensus that spans partisan lines and mirrors the public alarm that once catalyzed tobacco regulation. A Cornell-led survey of 2,000 nationally representative U.S. adults reveals that Americans are not only aware of the risks posed by sugary drinks, processed meats, and prepackaged baked goods, but ready for government action to curb them.
The research, published in the American Journal of Public Health, offers the first comprehensive snapshot of how Americans understand ultraprocessed foods, which now account for the majority of calories consumed in the country. When asked to weigh health risks, respondents ranked these foods as less serious than cigarettes but roughly equivalent to alcohol and significantly worse than either fast food or cannabis. The alignment is remarkable: majorities across political party affiliations expressed concern and support for intervention.
The scale of misalignment between what people consume and what they believe is safe is stark. While around 58% of Americans have heard of ultraprocessed foods, only about one-third feel confident explaining what they are—a gap that underscores why clearer definitions matter in policy and health communication. Yet even with this knowledge gap, nearly 70% of respondents believe these foods are addictive, a view supported by emerging scientific evidence showing consumption patterns and brain adaptations similar to those triggered by nicotine and alcohol.
Jeff Niederdeppe, senior author and the Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor in Cornell's Department of Communication, frames this moment as pivotal. "The convergence of public belief, bipartisan support and scientific evidence creates a critical window for policy action," he said. "Americans appear ready for stronger safeguards and holding the food industry accountable, ranging from additive testing to marketing restrictions." More than 60% of respondents viewed the ultraprocessed food industry cynically, believing products are deliberately marketed to encourage overconsumption and addiction, particularly among children.
When presented with potential interventions, Americans voiced strong support. More than 80% backed requiring the government to test laboratory-made chemicals for safety before they're used in food. Roughly two-thirds supported national education campaigns, restrictions on advertising to children, banning artificial dyes, and warning labels. A majority also favored litigation or accountability measures targeting food companies. Those who didn't endorse these interventions leaned neutral rather than opposed—suggesting openness rather than resistance.
This bipartisan consensus reflects a shift already underway in policymaking. California has restricted certain foods in school meals. State attorneys general are investigating companies. Even the Trump Administration's "Make America Healthy Again Report" criticized diets "high in added sugars, chemical additives and saturated fats, while lacking sufficient intakes of fruits and vegetables."
The survey, with a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points, captures a public ready for change. What remains to be seen is whether policymakers will match the appetite Americans have demonstrated for safeguards against an industry that profits from products the majority now sees as a public health threat.