Marion Nestle has a clear message for policymakers: "Do policy!" The leading food politics scholar made that call in a press release ahead of a special issue of the American Journal of Public Health, where top food researchers have united to push for stricter regulation of ultra-processed foods in the United States.
The timing matters because this is perhaps the first moment when such action could gain real traction. A new poll of 2,000 Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike—reveals something rare in today's polarized landscape: genuine cross-partisan consensus. A majority of respondents agreed that ultra-processed foods are addictive and a major cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. Most also support concrete government interventions including safety testing of food additives, bans on artificial dyes, warning labels on products, and pushing food companies to reduce sugar and salt content.
"In this polarized era where Americans disagree on so much, this is actually something where we're seeing a lot of agreement and public support, which should be a catalyst for policymakers," said Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Public Health. That consensus matters because it demonstrates the issue is not ideological but fundamentally about health.
Yet despite both broad public support and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s focus on ultra-processed foods, experts say meaningful government action remains largely absent. Nestle is particularly critical of the framing behind Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement, calling it "feelings-based" rather than science-driven. While the movement has backed some necessary steps—removing certain additives, artificial dyes, and glyphosate from the food supply—federal policy has fallen short.
Nestle's own contribution to the special issue, which comprises 17 articles from food researchers and policy experts, identifies a structural problem: the government's dietary guidelines place responsibility entirely on individuals rather than on the food industry itself. "When individuals are deemed entirely responsible for their own dietary intake, government policies need focus only on education," she wrote. Education alone is insufficient, she argues, because the food industry understands this well. Companies would rather face consumer education campaigns than actual regulations that affect their bottom line.
Real change requires systemic policy tools: taxes on unhealthy products, subsidies that make healthy foods affordable, reformed marketing regulations, and strategic changes to food procurement and product placement. Laura Schmidt, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco who studies chronic disease, pointed to one concrete opportunity: redirecting money saved in the 22 states that have already banned using food stamps to purchase soda and candy. These funds could instead subsidize local farmers, making fresh produce genuinely accessible to families who currently have no choice but ultra-processed alternatives.
The special issue documents how the problem runs deep. One article traces how cigarette marketing strategies from the 1980s and '90s were redeployed to develop and promote Lunchables, while another explores a potential link between ultra-processed food consumption and dementia in older adults. The research demonstrates this is not simply about personal choice—it is about how industry shapes the food environment itself.
What makes this moment distinctive is not the research, which has been accumulating for years, but the public readiness. When majorities across party lines support intervention, policymakers have both permission and obligation to act. The question now is whether they will.