New study reveals which ultra-processed food regulations Americans actually support

A recent study published in PLOS One suggests that most Americans support government efforts to provide information about ultra-processed foods, though they are less enthusiastic about strict financial penalties like taxes. The research provides evidence that people’s support for different food policies depends heavily on their personal beliefs about health, their income level, and their political affiliation.

For many years, nutrition science focused primarily on the amount of specific nutrients a person consumed. Health experts mostly warned the public about eating too much sugar, sodium, or saturated fat. Recently, attention has shifted away from specific nutrients and toward the actual level of industrial processing a food undergoes.

The concept of ultra-processed foods first gained scientific attention around 2010 when researchers in Brazil introduced a new classification system. This system groups foods based entirely on the extent and purpose of the industrial processing applied to them. These items are typically made using industrial techniques and ingredients you would not find in a normal home kitchen.

They often contain additives, preservatives, and emulsifiers, which are chemical substances used to keep different ingredients mixed smoothly together. These heavily processed items have gained worldwide attention because many scientific papers link them to negative health outcomes. Based on this growing body of evidence, some countries have started creating policies to identify or limit these products.

In the United States, government intervention regarding processing has historically been quite rare. Recently, however, political movements and campaigns have brought new scrutiny to the American food supply. High-profile political committees have specifically highlighted industrial food processing as a major factor in childhood chronic diseases.

“There is a lot of attention on ultra-processed foods (UPFs), particularly with the momentum of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative,” said study author Brenna Ellison, a professor in agricultural economics at Purdue University. “Given this, we thought it was important to understand the public’s perspective on different ways that UPFs could be regulated.”

The authors designed the project to see exactly which types of policies the public tends to support or oppose. “Specifically, we looked at information-based policies (e.g., defining UPFs, providing guidance around consumption), restriction-based policies (e.g., restricting sales of UPFs in grocery stores, schools, on SNAP), and pricing-based policies (e.g., taxing UPFs),” Ellison told PsyPost. SNAP refers to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps low-income households buy groceries.

To explore these attitudes, the scientists surveyed 990 consumers across the United States. They recruited participants online during February of 2025. The research team aimed to match the general population in terms of age, gender, income, and geographic region.

The survey asked respondents if they supported six potential government actions regarding ultra-processed foods. These options included the information-based, restriction-based, and price-based policies mentioned by the researchers. Alongside asking about policy support, the authors measured how participants viewed these foods in general.

Respondents rated the foods on traits like safety, cost, taste, convenience, naturalness, and addictiveness. The survey also evaluated subjective knowledge, which refers to how confident a participant felt in their own ability to identify an ultra-processed food while shopping. The researchers used statistical models that allowed them to see how different personal traits overlapped and influenced support for multiple policies at the same time.

The responses showed that people strongly favor educational information over strict market rules. Over 80 percent of participants supported the government creating a formal definition for ultra-processed foods. A similar majority supported the government providing dietary recommendations.

“We find that respondents were most supportive of information-based policies,” Ellison told PsyPost. “In other words, consumers want to know how UPFs are defined and how much they should (or should not) be consuming. Taking a step back, information-based policies like this generally appeal to consumers – calorie labeling on restaurant menus also had strong public support.”

Restriction-based policies still saw majority support, though the approval varied depending on the specific setting. Restricting the sale of these items in schools was the most popular limit, gathering 68.4 percent support. Limiting sales in grocery stores or restricting purchases within food assistance programs saw much lower approval, hovering around 51 percent for both options.

The price-based approach was the least popular option among the six policies, as only 43.6 percent of people supported placing a tax on ultra-processed products. “Outside of this, restriction-based policies also received majority support, but more respondents were in support of restrictions in schools relative to restrictions in grocery stores or on SNAP benefits,” Ellison explained. “Taxing UPFs, conversely, did not garner majority support.”

The researchers found that personal beliefs heavily shaped policy support. “We also find that how people think about UPFs affects which policy options they support,” Ellison said. “For example, people who viewed UPFs as unsafe or addictive were more likely to support regulating UPFs, yet people who viewed UPFs as tasty were less likely to support regulation.”

When people viewed these items as highly unsafe, it increased their support for informational policies by roughly three percentage points. “I would not say there were big surprises here, but it was very interesting to see how perceptions of UPFs impacted policy support,” Ellison noted. “We have not seen this in the literature yet.”

Demographic factors also played a major role in shaping public opinion. Individuals with lower household incomes were noticeably less supportive of adding taxes to these foods. They were also less likely to support restricting their inclusion in food assistance programs. This aligns with economic expectations, as lower-income households would feel the financial burden of a food tax much more heavily than wealthier families.

Political affiliation also influenced how people viewed different interventions. Democrats were more likely than other groups to support information-based policies, like creating a formal definition. Republicans were notably more supportive of restricting ultra-processed foods within government food assistance programs. Both Democrats and Republicans showed more support for grocery store restrictions and taxes compared to political independents.

Interestingly, parental status did not change how people felt about restricting these foods in schools. Parents and non-parents supported the school restriction measure equally. However, parents were more likely than non-parents to support grocery restrictions and taxes. Additionally, participants who felt highly confident in their ability to spot ultra-processed foods tended to support almost all the proposed regulations.

The authors note a few limitations to keep in mind. Because the survey asked about hypothetical policies, participants might have overstated or understated how they would react if these rules became reality. This phenomenon is known as hypothetical bias.

“Probably the biggest limitation is that our results are from a cross-sectional survey, meaning they are at one point in time,” Ellison said. “In our current environment, it feels like change happens rapidly, so we cannot say whether sentiment has changed (or will change) from this sample.”

Additionally, the sample had slightly higher numbers of low-income and college-educated individuals than the general public, which could slightly skew the overall percentages. The research focuses entirely on public approval, which does not reflect how effective a policy might actually be at improving public health. Sometimes, the policies people dislike the most are actually the most effective at changing daily habits.

Future research could explore how consumers react to specific types of packaging labels in a real-world setting. Scientists could also track changes in public sentiment over longer periods of time.

“Over time, we would like to continue to monitor public sentiment toward policy options to regulate UPFs,” Ellison said. “Once we have a formal definition of UPFs, which is still expected to come out in the near future, this could affect what additional type(s) of regulation the public might want to see for UPFs.”

“Without more information on what is/isn’t a UPF, it is hard for the public to know the extent to which they want these foods to be regulated,” she added. As local and federal governments continue to debate food processing regulations, understanding these perspectives helps officials communicate their strategies more effectively.

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.