Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Regulatory responses to ultra-processed foods are skewed towards behaviour change and not food system transformation

Nature Food (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that diets high in ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are harming human and planetary health. UPFs therefore pose a complex regulatory challenge, yet, to date, little research has systematically assessed how governments have responded to UPFs in national food policies. Here we analyse data from the NOURISHING database to assess the scope and strength of UPF-related regulatory interventions worldwide, using three frameworks—namely, NOURISHING, the Nuffield Ladder and the Modalities of Control framework. Of the 417 UPF-related measures identified, most imply food processing or mention UPF examples rather than refer to processing or UPFs specifically. The scope of action is narrow; 85.9% of interventions change the food environment, largely represented by nutrition labelling. The strength of action is limited; interventions are skewed towards informational measures to influence consumer choice, and 47.1% of measures use consensus to shape food business conduct. These findings highlight an opportunity to broaden the scope and strength of UPF-related regulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Summary of the scope and strength of worldwide UPF-related regulatory interventions grouped by region (n = 417).
Fig. 2: The scope and strength of worldwide UPF-related regulatory interventions that directly mention ultra-processed or highly processed foods, by region (n = 15).
Fig. 3: The scope and strength of worldwide UPF-related regulatory interventions targeting food businesses, mapped across three frameworks: NOURISHING, the Nuffield Ladder and the MOC framework.
Fig. 4: The strength of worldwide UPF-related regulatory interventions, classified by the modality of control and type of instrument used to regulate commercial actors, and the rung on the Nuffield Ladder relevant to the impact on consumer choice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data on policy actions are freely available via the NOURISHING database at https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/. Data supporting the findings of this study are also included in the Supplementary Information.

References

  1. Lustig, R. H. Ultraprocessed food: addictive, toxic, and ready for regulation. Nutrients 12, 3401 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ultra-processed Food and Drink Products in Latin America: Sales, Sources, Nutrient Profiles and Policy Implications (PAHO, 2019).

  3. Popkin, B. M. et al. Towards unified and impactful policies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and promote healthier eating. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 9, 462–470 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Touvier, M. et al. Ultra-processed foods and cardiometabolic health: public health policies to reduce consumption cannot wait. Brit. Med. J. 383, e075294 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Monteiro, C. A. et al. NOVA. The star shines bright. [Food classification. Public health]. World Nutr. 7, 28–38 (2016).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Monteiro, C. A. et al. Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 22, 936–941 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Lane, M. M. et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. Brit. Med. J. 384, e077310 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Anastasiou, K., Baker, P., Hadjikakou, M., Hendrie, G. & Lawrence, M. A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. J. Clean. Prod. 368, 133155 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kesse-Guyot, E. et al. Environmental impacts along the value chain from the consumption of ultra-processed foods. Nat. Sustain. 6, 192–202 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Costa Louzada, M. L. & Pereira Machado, P. Ultra-processed Foods, Diet Quality and Human Health (FAO, 2019).

  11. Pomeranz, J. L., Mande, J. R. & Mozaffarian, D. U.S. policies addressing ultraprocessed foods, 1980–2022. Am. J. Prev. Med. 65, 1134–1141 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Pereira, T. N., Bortolini, G. A. & Campos, R. D. F. Barriers and facilitators related to the adoption of policies to reduce ultra-processed foods consumption: a scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20, 4729 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Hawkes, C., Jewell, J. & Allen, K. A food policy package for healthy diets and the prevention of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases: the NOURISHING framework. Obes. Rev. 14, 159–168 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, A. J., Cullerton, K. & Herron, L. Achieving food system transformation: insights from a retrospective review of nutrition policy (in)action in high-income countries. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 10, 766–783 (2021).

    PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. I, B., Baker, P. & Lawrence, M. Have we compromised too much? A critical analysis of nutrition policy in Australia 2007–2018. Public Health Nutr. 24, 1–11 (2020).

    PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Gaps between fruit and vegetable production, demand, and recommended consumption at global and national levels: an integrated modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 3, e318–e329 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Chambers, S. A., Freeman, R., Anderson, A. S. & MacGillivray, S. Reducing the volume, exposure and negative impacts of advertising for foods high in fat, sugar and salt to children: a systematic review of the evidence from statutory and self-regulatory actions and educational measures. Prev. Med. 75, 32–43 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Galbraith-Emami, S. & Lobstein, T. The impact of initiatives to limit the advertising of food and beverage products to children: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 14, 960–974 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sinclair, D. Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law Policy 19, 529–559 (1997).

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Magnusson, R. & Reeve, B. Steering private regulation - a new strategy for reducing population salt intake in Australia. Syd. Law Rev. 36, 255–290 (2014).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Public Health: Ethical Issues (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2007).

  22. Moodie, R. et al. Ultra-processed profits: the political economy of countering the global spread of ultra-processed foods – a synthesis review on the market and political practices of transnational food corporations and strategic public health responses. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 10, 968–982 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nestle, M. Regulating the food industry: an aspirational agenda. Am. J. Public Health 112, 853–858 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Morgan, B. & Yeung, K. An Introduction to Law and Regulation: Text and Materials (Law in Context). (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  25. NOURISHING and MOVING Policy Databases (World Cancer Research Fund International, 2022); https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/

  26. Koios, D., Machado, P. & Lacy-Nichols, J. Representations of ultra-processed foods: a global analysis of how dietary guidelines refer to levels of food processing. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 11, 2588–2599 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Anastasiou, K. et al. From harmful nutrients to ultra-processed foods: exploring shifts in ‘foods to limit’ terminology used in national food-based dietary guidelines. Public Health Nutr. 2, 1–12 (2022).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor, L. Colombia introduces Latin America’s first junk food tax. Brit. Med. J. 383, p2698 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mozaffarian, D., Angell, S. Y., Lang, T. & Rivera, J. A. Role of government policy in nutrition-barriers to and opportunities for healthier eating. Brit. Med. J. 361, k2426 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Swinburn, B. A. et al. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the Lancet Commission report. Lancet 393, 791–846 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Slater, S., Lawrence, M., Wood, B., Serodio, P. & Baker, P. Corporate interest groups and their implications for global food governance: mapping and analysing the global corporate influence network of the transnational ultra-processed food industry. Global. Health 20, 16 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Theis, D. R. Z. & White, M. Is obesity policy in England fit for purpose? Analysis of government strategies and policies, 1992–2020. Milbank Q. 99, 126–170 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Mazzocchi, M. Ex-post Evidence on the Effectiveness of Policies Targeted at Promoting Healthier Diets. (FAO, 2017).

  34. Global Nutrition Policy Review 2016-2017: Country Progress in Creating Enabling Policy Environments for Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition. 156 p. (WHO, 2018).

  35. Parker, C., Carey, R., Haines, F. & Johnson, H. Can labelling create transformative food system change for human and planetary health? A case study of meat. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 10, 923–933 (2020).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Nutrition and Food Systems. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security (HLPE, 2017).

  37. Northcott, T., Lawrence, M., Parker, C. & Baker, P. Ecological regulation for healthy and sustainable food systems: responding to the global rise of ultra-processed foods. Agric. Human Values https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10412-4 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meadows, D. H. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System pp. 1–19. (The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, WI, 1999).

  39. Fanzo, J. et al. Viewpoint: rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy 104, 102163 (2021).

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Hawkes, C., Walton, S., Haddad, L. & Fanzo, J. 42 Policies and Actions to Orient Food Systems Towards Healthier Diets for All (Centre for Food Policy, City, University of London, 2020).

  41. Food Systems Policy Tool: A Tool To Help Governments Deliver Healthier Diets And Sustainable Food Systems (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, 2021); https://www.glopan.org/policy_tool/

  42. Baker, P. et al. Ultra-processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obes. Rev. 21, e13126 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Swinburn, B. A. et al. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet 378, 804–814 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Joe, Y., Stuart, G., Natalie, S., Megan, D. & Suneetha, K. Trust and responsibility in food systems transformation. Engaging with Big Food: marriage or mirage? BMJ Glob. Health 6, e007350 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gilmore, A. B. et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet 401, 1194–1213 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Canella, D. S. et al. Food additives and PAHO’s nutrient profile model as contributors’ elements to the identification of ultra-processed food products. Sci. Rep. 13, 13698 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Popkin, B. M., Miles, D. R., Tallie, L. & Dunford, E. K. A policy approach to identifying food and beverage products that are ultra processed and high in added salt, sugar and saturated fat. Lancet Reg. Health Am. 32, 100713 (2024).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lawrence, M. A., Dickie, S. & Woods, J. L. Do nutrient-based front-of-pack labelling schemes support or undermine food-based dietary guideline recommendations? Lessons from the Australian Health Star Rating System. Nutrients 10, 32 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Brownell, K. D. & Koplan, J. P. Front-of-package nutrition labeling—an abuse of trust by the food industry? N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2373–2375 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. NOURISHING & MOVING Methods Document (World Cancer Research Fund International, 2024).

  51. Methods Document for Policy Scan - Technical Annex (World Cancer Research Fund International, 2024).

  52. Machado, P. et al. Evaluating intake levels of nutrients linked to non-communicable diseases in Australia using the novel combination of food processing and nutrient profiling metrics of the PAHO Nutrient Profile Model. Eur. J. Nutr. 61, 1801–1812 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Baker, P. & Demaio, A. The political economy of healthy and sustainable food systems. In Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems (eds Lawrence, M. & Friel, S.) 181–192 (Routledge, 2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

T.N. was supported by a Postgraduate Research Scholarship provided by Deakin University. P.B. declares funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies to support research, travel and conference attendance relating to a programme of research on ultra-processed foods, from an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship award (Project #FT220100690), and from a Sydney Horizon Fellowship award from the University of Sydney. M.L. and P.B. received support from the Australian Research Council Discovery Project titled ‘Reforming evidence synthesis and translation for food and nutrition policy’ (DP190101323). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

    Tanita Northcott & Mark Lawrence

  2. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

    Mark Lawrence

  3. Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Christine Parker

  4. The University of Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Belinda Reeve

  5. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Phillip Baker

Authors
  1. Tanita Northcott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Lawrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Belinda Reeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Phillip Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.N. and P.B. conceived the original topic for investigation and its objectives. T.N. and P.B. designed the study, with contributions from M.L., C.P. and B.R. T.N. led the data collection, analysis and drafting of the manuscript. T.N., P.B., M.L., C.P. and B.R. critically reviewed and commented on the manuscript. All authors contributed to and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanita Northcott.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

M.L. is a board member of Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The findings and views presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the findings or views of the Australian Government or Food Standards Australia New Zealand. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Jean Adams, Neha Khandpur, Barrie Margetts, Shu Ng, Martin White and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–7 and Fig. 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Northcott, T., Lawrence, M., Parker, C. et al. Regulatory responses to ultra-processed foods are skewed towards behaviour change and not food system transformation. Nat Food (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01101-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01101-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing