A recent examination of ultraprocessed foods and the influence of corporate practices has drawn attention to longstanding concerns about the food industry’s role in public health. Researchers highlighted in a special section of The American Journal of Public Health reveal connections between food marketing strategies and tactics originally developed by the tobacco industry.

Philip Morris, which owned Kraft Foods from the mid-1980s until 2007, reportedly leveraged research, development, and marketing techniques perfected in tobacco sales to promote processed food products, especially targeting children. Laura A. Schmidt, a professor at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed internal documents obtained through litigation against tobacco companies. These documents, which now number over 19 million and have been digitized by U.C.S.F., show how Philip Morris applied “technical synergies” such as chemical additives and flavor encapsulation technologies from cigarettes to foods like Lunchables — a combination of processed meats, cheeses, and breads packaged in plastic trays.

In the 1990s, according to Schmidt’s research, Philip Morris attempted to market low-fat versions of Lunchables in response to growing concerns about childhood obesity, using a “better for you” reformulation approach initially designed for filtered cigarettes. However, these products remained high in sodium, sugar, and refined carbohydrates, maintaining their appeal through hyperpalatability while offering limited nutritional improvement. This trend continues today as many food brands remove artificial dyes or other visible additives but retain chemical combinations that enhance taste and overeating potential.

A 2023 study published in Nature Communications estimated that ultraprocessed foods represent approximately 73 percent of the U.S. food supply. Public health experts express concern about the pervasive nature of these products, which often contain hidden added sugars even in items not traditionally considered sweets, such as breads, cereals, and pasta sauces. Priya Fielding-Singh, policy and programs director at George Washington University’s Global Food Institute, which recently issued a roadmap to reduce added sugar intake among children, noted that many consumers are unaware of the sugar content in everyday foods.

To address these challenges, researchers like Schmidt and policy advocates are calling for clearer regulatory definitions of ultraprocessed foods and improved labeling systems. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, has indicated that a formal definition is forthcoming, which will pave the way for front-of-package labeling modeled on the “red light, yellow light, green light” system used in several countries including members of the European Union, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Israel. Under this system, labels indicate high, moderate, or low levels of fat, sugar, and salt, aiming to help consumers make healthier choices at a glance.

However, some experts warn that such measures could face obstacles, including socioeconomic barriers to healthy eating. Recent legislation passed by the House of Representatives proposes cutting $141 million from the vegetable and fruit allowance in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), prompting concern that nutritious food options may become less accessible to low-income families. Critics argue that public health campaigns emphasizing “eat real food” risk falling short if affordability and access are not adequately addressed.

The growing dialogue surrounding ultraprocessed foods underscores the complexities faced by consumers, policymakers, and health advocates as they navigate an environment shaped by corporate interests, nutritional science, and social equity.