A recent examination of corporate practices surrounding ultraprocessed foods has brought renewed scrutiny to the food industry’s role in public health, highlighting longstanding concerns about how certain companies market unhealthy products, particularly to children.

The American Journal of Public Health recently published a special section focusing on ultraprocessed foods and the influence of large food corporations. Among the research featured is an analysis by Laura A. Schmidt, a professor at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco. Schmidt’s work draws on a vast archive of over 19 million documents released through litigation against tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, which owned Kraft Foods from 1988 to 2007. These documents reveal that Philip Morris applied strategies originally developed to sell cigarettes to the marketing of processed foods, notably Lunchables, which combine processed meats, cheeses, and breads into convenient snack packs.

Schmidt’s research points to the use of “technical synergies,” such as chemical additives and flavor encapsulation technology, first devised for tobacco products and later adapted for food products. For example, in the mid-1990s, Philip Morris introduced Low-Fat Lunchables as part of a “better for you” reformulation strategy modeled on filtered Marlboro cigarettes. However, these modified Lunchables were not significantly healthier, maintaining high levels of sodium, sugar, and fat designed to promote overconsumption.

This blending of food marketing with tobacco-style techniques reflects ongoing challenges for parents and consumers attempting to encourage healthy eating. Despite efforts like home cooking and label reading, many find it difficult to avoid ultraprocessed foods, which now comprise approximately 73% of the U.S. food supply, according to a 2023 study published in Nature Communications.

Experts suggest several policy reforms to address the problem. The Global Food Institute at George Washington University recently released a roadmap aimed at reducing added sugar intake among children. Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the institute, noted that added sugars are often hidden in everyday products like breads, cereals, and pasta sauces, making it easy for children to exceed recommended limits without consuming obvious sweets.

Improved food labeling has also been proposed as a critical step. Schmidt emphasized the need for a clear regulatory definition of ultraprocessed food to guide such efforts. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has indicated that a formal definition is forthcoming and that the government plans to implement front-of-package labeling with a color-coded system—green, yellow, and red indicating low to high levels of fat, sugar, and salt. Similar systems are already in use in countries across the European Union, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Israel.

However, concerns extend beyond labeling. Critics warn that policy shifts could inadvertently make healthy eating less accessible for low-income Americans. Recent congressional proposals would reduce funding by $141 million for fruits and vegetables within the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), potentially limiting access to nutritious foods for vulnerable populations. As public health advocates note, calls to “eat real food” risk being ineffective if socioeconomic barriers remain unaddressed.