Recent research published in Pro Swan The study suggests that most Americans support government efforts to provide information about ultra-processed foods, but are less enthusiastic about harsh fiscal penalties such as taxes. This study provides evidence that people’s support for different food policies is highly dependent on their personal beliefs about health, income level, and political affiliation.
For many years, nutrition science has primarily focused on the amount of specific nutrients a person ingests. Health experts primarily warn the public about overconsumption of sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. Recently, attention has shifted from specific nutrients to the actual level of industrial processing that foods undergo.
The concept of ultra-processed foods first gained scientific attention around 2010, when Brazilian researchers introduced a new classification system. This system groups foods based entirely on the degree and purpose of industrial processing applied to them. These items are typically made using industrial techniques and materials not found in a typical home kitchen.
These often contain additives, preservatives, and emulsifiers, which are chemicals used to mix various ingredients smoothly. These highly processed foods have received worldwide attention as many scientific papers have linked them to negative health effects. Based on this growing body of evidence, some countries have begun to develop policies to identify or restrict these products.
In the United States, government intervention regarding processing has historically been very rare. Recently, however, political movements and campaigns have brought new eyes to America’s food supply. Prominent political committees have particularly highlighted the food processing industry as a major contributor to childhood chronic diseases.
“Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are receiving a lot of attention, especially with the momentum of the Making America Healthier (MAHA) initiative,” said study author Brenna Ellison, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. “Given this, we thought it was important to understand the public’s perspective on the different ways to regulate UPF.”
The authors designed this project to understand exactly what types of policies the public tends to support or oppose. “Specifically, we considered information-based policies (e.g., defining UPF, providing guidance on consumption), restriction-based policies (e.g., limiting the sale of UPF in grocery stores, schools, and SNAP), and price-based policies (e.g., taxing UPF),” Ellison told PsyPost. SNAP refers to the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps low-income households buy groceries.
To find out about these attitudes, scientists surveyed 990 consumers across the United States. The research team recruited participants online during February 2025. The research team aimed to match the general population in terms of age, gender, income, and geographic region.
The survey asked respondents whether they supported six potential government actions regarding ultra-processed foods. These options included information-based, restriction-based, and price-based policies mentioned by the researchers. The authors asked about policy support and measured how participants viewed these foods in general.
Respondents rated foods on characteristics such as safety, cost, taste, convenience, naturalness, and addictiveness. The study also assessed subjective knowledge, which refers to how confident participants are in their ability to identify ultra-processed foods while shopping. The researchers used a statistical model that allows them to see how different personal characteristics overlap and influence support for multiple policies at the same time.
The responses show that people strongly prefer educational information over strict market rules. More than 80% of participants supported the government developing an official definition of ultra-processed foods. A similar majority supported the government providing dietary recommendations.
“We found that respondents were most supportive of information-based policies,” Ellison told SciPost. “In other words, consumers want to know how UPF is defined and how much they should (or shouldn’t) consume. When you step back, such informed policies generally appeal to consumers. Calorie labeling on restaurant menus also received strong support from the public.”
Restriction-based policies still enjoy majority support, but the degree of approval has varied depending on specific circumstances. Restricting the sale of these products within schools was the most popular restriction, garnering support from 68.4%. Support for ideas such as restricting sales at grocery stores or restricting purchases within food assistance programs was much lower, at around 51%.
The price-based approach was the least popular option of the six policies, as only 43.6% supported taxing ultra-processed goods. “Other than this, restrictions-based policies also received majority support, but more respondents supported restrictions in schools compared to restrictions at grocery stores and SNAP benefits,” Ellison explained. “Conversely, taxing the UPF did not garner majority support.”
Researchers found that personal beliefs significantly influenced policy support. “We also found that what people think about the UPF influences which policy options they support,” Ellison said. “For example, people who thought UPF was unsafe or addictive were more likely to support regulation of UPF, whereas people who thought UPF was delicious were less likely to support regulation.”
When people considered these items to be very dangerous, support for information policy increased by about 3 percentage points. “I can’t say there were any big surprises here, but it was very interesting to see how perceptions of the UPF affected policy support,” Ellison said. “We haven’t seen this in the literature yet.”
Demographic factors also played a major role in shaping public opinion. Those with lower household incomes were significantly less supportive of taxing these foods. They were also less likely to support limiting participation in food assistance programs. This is consistent with economic projections, as low-income households feel the financial burden of food taxes much more heavily than wealthier households.
Political party affiliation also influenced how people viewed various interventions. Democrats were more likely than other groups to support information-based policies, such as creating a formal definition. Republicans were particularly supportive of restricting ultra-processed foods in government food aid programs. Both Democrats and Republicans were more supportive of grocery store regulations and taxes than independents.
Interestingly, parental status did not change how people felt about restricting these foods at school. Parents and non-parents equally supported the school attendance restriction measures. However, parents were more likely than non-parents to support food restrictions and taxes. Additionally, participants who had high confidence in their ability to identify ultra-processed foods were more likely to support nearly all proposed regulations.
The authors state that there are some limitations to keep in mind. Because the survey asked about hypothetical policies, participants may have overestimated or underestimated how they would react if these rules became reality. This phenomenon is known as hypothesis bias.
“Perhaps the biggest limitation is that our results are from a cross-sectional study, which means they are from a single point in time,” Ellison said. “We cannot determine from this sample whether sentiment has changed (or whether it will change in the future), as changes seem to be occurring rapidly in the current environment.”
Additionally, there are slightly more low-income and college-educated individuals in this sample than in the general population, which may skew the overall proportions slightly. This study focuses solely on public approval and does not reflect how effective policies actually are in improving public health. Sometimes the policies people hate the most are actually the most effective at changing their daily habits.
Future research could investigate how consumers respond to specific types of packaging labels in real-world settings. Scientists can also track changes in public sentiment over time.
“We will continue to monitor public sentiment regarding policy options for regulating UPF as time progresses,” Ellison said. “Once we have a formal definition of UPF, which is expected to be announced in the near future, it could influence what additional regulations the public wants for UPF.”
“Without more information about what is and is not UPF, it is difficult to know how much the public wants these foods to be regulated,” she added. As local and federal governments continue to debate food processing regulations, understanding these perspectives will help them more effectively communicate their strategies.
The study, “The Politics of Processed Foods: Consumer Perceptions of Policies Targeting Ultra-Processed Foods,” was authored by Brenna Ellison, Maria Kalaitzandonakes, Karen Byrd, and Bhagyashree Katare.
