Across partisan lines, Americans broadly believe ultraprocessed foods are addictive and harmful - expressing attitudes strikingly like those that spurred regulation of the tobacco industry, new Cornell-led research finds.
Surveying a nationally representative sample of 2,000 U.S. adults, the research provides the first comprehensive assessment of American understanding of ultraprocessed foods - such as sugary drinks, processed meats and prepackaged baked goods - that make up a majority of the calories Americans consume.
More than 60% of survey respondents agreed that such foods are addictive and major causes of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Respondents perceived the health risks as less serious than cigarettes but roughly equivalent to alcohol and worse than fast food or cannabis.
Respondents across political party affiliation also broadly supported various public policies that could reduce consumption of ultraprocessed foods. The results point to an unusual bipartisan consensus in public health that aligns with mounting scientific evidence, the researchers said - a potential catalyst for legal and policy action.
"Ultraprocessed foods have entered public consciousness as a major health hazard," said Jeff Niederdeppe, the Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor in the Department of Communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and senior associate dean of faculty and research in the Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy. "The convergence of public belief, bipartisan support and scientific evidence creates a critical window for policy action. Americans appear ready for stronger safeguards and holding the food industry accountable, ranging from additive testing to marketing restrictions."
Niederdeppe is the first author of "Public Awareness and Support for Governmental Intervention to Address Harms Associated with Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods: A National Survey, United States, June 2025," published June 3 in a special issue of the American Journal of Public Health. Co-authors are Colleen Barry, dean of the Brooks School; Norman Porticella, a research associate in the Department of Communication (CALS); Sarah Gollust, professor in the Division of Health Policy and Management at the University of Minnesota; Kelly Brownell, the Robert L. Flowers Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Public Policy at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy; and Ashley Gearhardt, professor of psychology at the University of Michigan.
Ultraprocessed foods have drawn increasing scrutiny from policymakers across ideological lines. Action to date includes restrictions on school meals in California; state attorneys general investigating companies; and criticism in the Trump Administration's "Make America Healthy Again Report" of diets dominated by foods "high in added sugars, chemical additives and saturated fats, while lacking sufficient intakes of fruits and vegetables."
But little was known about public understanding of the issue and support for potential interventions, and whether views differed by political affiliation.
Among other findings from the new survey, whose margin of error was 2.4 percentage points:
- Around 58% of Americans have heard of ultraprocessed foods, but only about one-third are confident they could explain what they are. This finding underscores the need to more clearly define the term in policy and health communication.
- Nearly 70% of respondents believe ultraprocessed foods are addictive, aligning with scientific evidence of consumption patterns and brain adaptations similar to those seen with nicotine and alcohol. Smaller numbers believed the foods may also harm mental health.
- More than 60% of respondents viewed the ultraprocessed food industry cynically, including belief that products are marketed for overconsumption and addiction among children.
- Considering potential interventions, more than 80% of respondents supported requiring the government to test laboratory-made chemicals for safety before their use in food products; roughly two-thirds supported national education campaigns, restrictions on advertising to children, banning dyes and warning labels; and a majority favored litigation or accountability measures targeting food companies. Those not endorsing interventions were more neutral than opposed.
Perhaps the most significant finding, the researchers said, was the degree of bipartisan agreement. In prior debates about polices related to obesity and soda taxes, conservatives have tended to cite concerns about personal freedom or paternalism. The public now appears to believe that corporate strategies - not just individual willpower - shape dietary choices, the researchers said.
"Public health issues have become increasingly polarized in the United States," said Niederdeppe, who is also associate director of the Cornell Health Policy Center and founding co-director of the Collaborative on Media and Messaging for Health and Social Policy. "Our results show that ultraprocessed foods are breaking through ideological barriers. This suggests there may be a durable foundation for policy change."
The researchers said parallels to tobacco control are striking. In that case, industry deception, marketing to children and a growing chronic disease burden shifted public opinion that proved critical to reform.
"A similar shift in narrative seems poised to accelerate momentum for reform around ultraprocessed foods," the researchers wrote. "Ultimately, results suggest that the American public is not a barrier to progress - it may be the catalyst."
The research was funded by the Dohmen Company Foundation, a private foundation whose mission is to fight diet-related disease.
