With Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly calling out Big Food, ultra-processed foods are finally entering the national spotlight. But the conversation risks becoming politicized, and that would be a mistake.

The health harms of ultra-processed foods are becoming increasingly documented, yet public discourse too often gets bogged down in politics rather than advancing solutions. What we need now is action.

For decades, ultra-processed foods — cheap, palatable, shelf-stable products engineered for maximum consumption — have dominated the American diet. Originally developed during World War II to provide affordable, long-lasting rations, these foods have since morphed into something far more extreme.

What began as a wartime necessity evolved into a profit-driven industry built on super-sized portions, synthetic additives, and relentless marketing. Today, these hyper-engineered products comprise more than 73 percent of the U.S. food supply, according to Northeastern University’s Network Science Institute.

Conditions once rare in children, such as type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, are now rising, especially in low-income and minority communities where ultra-processed foods are often more accessible than nutritious alternatives. We are seeing mental health suffer too. Emerging research on the gut-brain connection suggests that additives and refined carbohydrates in ultra-processed foods may disrupt the gut microbiome, contributing to increased rates of anxiety, stress, and depression.

The consequences go far beyond individual health. The U.S. obesity epidemic costs an estimated $173 billion annually, straining our healthcare system and undercutting national productivity.

Our food system, reliant on ultra-processed foods, has created a vicious cycle. We produce foods that drive obesity, then market expensive GLP-1 drugs to treat it. Now we’re even engineering new foods designed to be eaten alongside the drugs. Meanwhile, patients absorb the costs — physically, financially, and emotionally.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Based on original research at Princeton including a nationally representative survey of over 2,300 Americans, expert interviews, participation at the World Food Forum in Rome, and international case studies, there are concrete, nonpartisan steps we can take to sidestep gridlock and break this cycle.

First, the U.S. needs a clear federal definition of ultra-processed foods to guide policy and consumer understanding. Countries like Brazil have led the way by incorporating such definitions into their national dietary guidelines, explicitly warning against ultra-processed foods. In Italy, local governments have even stepped up with food policy councils to drive change. Without a consistent federal standard, consumer confusion persists and harmful products continue to slip through regulatory cracks.

Next, implementing standardized front-of-package labeling that draws from Latin America’s bold warning icons and Europe’s color-coded Nutri-Score can help consumers quickly identify highly processed products. Evidence from places like Chile and France shows these systems not only influence consumer behavior but can also push manufacturers to reformulate their products.

We must also formally recognize food addiction as a public health issue. This would open the door to expanded nutrition research, dedicated support services, and stronger marketing regulations, especially to protect children from predatory advertising. Countries like South Korea and the U.K. have led the way: South Korea restricts fast food near schools through “Green Food Zones,” and the U.K. is banning junk food ads on television before 9 p.m. and across digital platforms.

But in some parts of the U.S., there is already momentum underway at the state and local level. Initiatives in both red and blue states, like Texas’s proposal to mandate warning labels for specific ingredients and California’s push for additive bans, show that food policy reform can transcend partisan divides. California’s actions have already prompted other states, including Illinois, Florida, Arizona, and Utah, to advance similar measures. This patchwork of state leadership is starting to drive industry reformulation and set the stage for broader national change.

Improving food literacy and nutrition education is essential to building foundational understanding of health and food systems. Japan’s Shokuiku policy and Finland’s Tasty School program show how school meals can serve as nutrition education, fostering healthy habits early. Requiring U.S. schools, hospitals, and other public institutions to prioritize minimally processed, nutrient-dense foods would protect vulnerable communities and shift national demand toward real food.

Perhaps the most innovative recommendation derived from my research is for the U.S. to adopt data-driven tools like GroceryDB and Food Compass 2.0 to improve food labeling. These

AI-powered systems analyze products beyond traditional nutrient content, assessing the degree and type of processing to provide a clear, science-based score. Unlike existing labels, which often overlook the complexity of ultra-processing, these tools can help consumers easily identify truly unhealthy foods and encourage manufacturers to reformulate products. While still evolving, such technology holds promise to make food labels more transparent and accurate, offering a powerful complement to policy efforts.

Still, tackling the ultra-processed food crisis will require more than isolated reforms. It demands a coordinated, cross-sector effort. The government must formally recognize UPFs, invest in stronger regulations and nutrition research, and empower localities to lead. Industry must shift its value proposition toward health, investing in tools like AI-powered nutrition scoring and product reformulation. And at the grassroots level, youth activism and community-based initiatives can drive the cultural change needed to make access to nutritious food the norm, rather than the exception.

The evidence is clear, and the political moment is ripe. If enough people understand and care about the harms of ultra-processed foods, pressure from below can compel action from above. The question is no longer whether we can act, but whether we will.

Lina Singh is a Fulbright Scholar and recent graduate of Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs. She is an incoming master’s student at the University of Gastronomic Sciences in Pollenzo, Italy. Nicole Avena, Ph.D., is a neuroscientist specializing in nutrition, addiction, and eating behavior and an Associate Professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Visiting Professor of Health Psychology at Princeton University.