The Fed Up! campaign describes itself as the “science-first consumer movement to confront ultra-processed food.”
As scrutiny of ultra-processed foods grows, consensus remains elusive on what qualifies as a UPF. Proponents of processed foods and critics of certain ultra-processed products share goals around scientific rigor, consumer understanding and improved nutrition, but diverge on how UPFs should be classified, evaluated and regulated.
The campaign launch coincided with a special edition of the American Journal of Public Health on ultra-processed food research published on June 3. Fed Up! argues that UPFs are linked to health-related illness and disease. It points out that the research shared with the public is peer-reviewed and devoid of conflicts of interest often shaping critical public health policy.
Ultra-processed foods, which aren’t yet formally defined, are significant contributors to food-related illnesses and disease in the US food system, argues the campaign.
UPFs prevalence in the food system is “the result of large food corporations reshaping our food system and flooding the market with products that are over‑engineered to be hyper‑palatable and shelf‑stable,” it says.
Fed Up! further states that “ultra‑processed food is now cheap, pervasive, and hard to distinguish or avoid” and links consumption to health risks, asserting that “high ultra‑processed food consumption is associated with increased risk of heart disease, cancer, depression, metabolic disease and premature mortality.”
The campaign frames the issue as systemic rather than singular, emphasizing that “the problem isn’t personal failure. It’s structural design.”
Its action plan centers on translating science into public understanding and mobilization. The campaign aims to
- “Distill complex, high‑quality research into clear, accurate and accessible public education”
- “Meet people where they are – concerned, frustrated and looking for clarity – without shame or guilt”
- “Pair understanding with action” and “lay the groundwork for systemic change”
Food science experts: UPF definition is needed to clearly determine health impact
As “one of the most polarizing terms in the food system today,” UPFs’ correlation to chronic diseases is difficult to determine “when we cannot define what an ultra-processed food even is,” said Anna Rosales, VP of science and policy at the Institute of Food Technologists.
She emphasizes that “clear, evidence-based terminology – with a universally accepted definition for UPFs – is essential before we can start assessing the true impact of UPFs on human health.”
Rosales also notes the scope of the UPF category, citing that “the vague nature of such classification means that estimates of 70% or more of the food supply could be classified as UPF,” which includes fortified foods like bread and yogurt.
She further highlights a key methodological issue. “Many UPF systems confuse processing (the steps used to make food) with formulation (the ingredients and amounts used),” adding that “this has contributed to a lot of the confusion around UPFs today.”
“The biggest misunderstanding is that ‘ultra-processed’ is treated as a single category of harm, when in reality it is one of the least precise terms in nutrition science,” Kantha Shelke, principal food scientist for Corvus Blue said.
Shelke also emphasized the inconsistency in classification where “various researchers and nutritionists asked to classify the same foods agreed only about a third of the time.”
Rosales echoed this concern, pointing out that broad categorization “signals that more information, research and precision is needed to help untangle causation and inform interventions.”
Limitations of NOVA classification system
Current classification systems, like NOVA that food science relied on to distinguish processing levels, compress key differences, argues Shelke.
“NOVA’s flat brush categorization lumps a sugar-sweetened soda together with fortified whole-grain bread, plain yogurt and canned beans, even though the evidence shows their health effects diverge significantly,” she said.
Rosales adds that the NOVA system “elevates home preparation as preferred and portrays industrial in a very negative light.”
What is the value in processing?
Shelke and Rosales point out processing technology is an integral part of creating safe, affordable, shelf stable and nutritious foods.
“Food processing has enabled delivery of more nutritious and safer food than any time in human history,” Rosales said, adding that processing offers solutions to improving taste and texture.
Shelke cautions that “a backlash aimed at ‘processing’ risks indicting the very tools that fixed iodine deficiency, neural-tube defects and foodborne illness.”
“Processed and ‘harmful’ are not synonyms and treating them as one is where public understanding breaks down,” she said. Rather, Shelke adds, understanding overall dietary patterns and lifestyle provide more information around health outcomes – not a single food category.
“Before we jump to conclusions, we need a clear definition followed by more robust research that untangles the nuance,” Rosales said.
Food equity and access consequences
Shelke places the UPF debate within a broader socioeconomic reality, noting that “lower-income and food-insecure households rely on packaged foods disproportionately.” In this context, she warns that current messaging can have unintended consequences.
“When public health framing equates ‘processed’ with ‘poison,’ it can shame the very people who rely on affordable, shelf-stable, fortified products,” she said.
She further highlights that “in food-insecure settings, those products can be genuinely preferable.”
This perspective is echoed in part by the Consumer Brands Association, which emphasizes the role of manufacturers providing “a wide variety of affordable products to choose from … that consumers depend on every day.”
Innovation and reformulation
With product innovations around lower sodium, sugar, higher-fiber, plant-based and fortified foods, broad categorization of UPFs risks overlooking these reformulation efforts.
“Ingredients such as added fibers, vitamins, minerals and flavors often serve beneficial roles and should not automatically categorize a food as ultra-processed,” Rosales said.
Safety vs nutrition distinction
The Consumer Brands Association draws a clear line between nutrition debates and the integrity of the food system itself, stating that “America has one of the safest and most highly regulated food systems in the world.”
While acknowledging space for discussion, it underscores that “we welcome fact-based conversations about nutrition, but safety is not up for debate.”
The organization further emphasizes that companies “adhere to the rigorous evidence-based safety standards and nutrition policy established by the FDA to deliver safe, affordable and convenient products.”
Where do these perspectives align?
Despite their differences, there are several areas where perspectives converge.
On public health, Fed Up! emphasizes systemic challenges and disease risk, while others acknowledge the broader concern highlighted in Rosales’ observation that “policymakers, consumers, and advocacy groups want to frame ultra-processed foods as a major driver of chronic disease.”
There is also shared emphasis on the role of scientific rigor. Fed Up! describes itself as “grounded in peer-reviewed and conflict-free research,” while Rosales calls for “clear, evidence-based terminology,” and Shelke points to the ways in which “public understanding breaks down” when definitions lack precision.
Consumer confusion is another point of alignment. Fed Up! notes that individuals feel “confused … and unsure who to trust,” a sentiment that aligns with Rosales’ assessment that “this has contributed to a lot of the confusion around UPFs today.”
