Ultra-processed foods: How neoliberal food policy, corporate lobbying, and racial capitalism shape dietary inequality before the 2026 elections
Original framing: “STAT+: Nutrition experts press White House to release ultra-processed food definition” — STAT News
The modern ultra-processed food industry traces its roots to the mid-20th century, when the U.S. government and corporations collaborated to develop processed foods as a solution to food shortages during World War II and the Great Depression. Programs like the 'School Lunch Program' (1946) and the promotion of canned and frozen foods were designed to ensure nutritional adequacy while also creating markets for corporate producers. This historical context reveals how dietary guidelines have long been shaped by corporate interests, with the goal of expanding industrial food production rather than promoting public health. The current debate over UPF regulation ignores this precedent, treating the issue as a new problem rather than the culmination of decades of policy decisions.
The demand for a federal definition of ultra-processed foods is not an isolated technical issue but a symptom of deeper structural failures in U.S.
food policy, where corporate interests, racial capitalism, and neoliberal ideology collide to prioritize profit over public health. The historical precedent of government-corporate collaboration in promoting processed foods during the mid-20th century reveals how dietary guidelines have long been shaped by corporate lobbying, creating a system where UPFs are not merely 'convenient' but structurally embedded in the food environment. Marginalized communities, particularly Black and Latino populations, bear the brunt of this system due to systemic food deserts and targeted marketing, yet their voices are systematically excluded from policy discussions. Cross-cultural examples from Brazil and Mexico demonstrate that regulatory intervention—combined with community-based education—can effectively counter the harms of UPFs, offering a blueprint for U.S. policymakers. Indigenous knowledge systems further challenge the individualistic framing of dietary health, proposing alternatives rooted in food sovereignty and cultural identity. The trickster perspective exposes the absurdity of calling for a definition of UPFs while the industry continues to evade accountability, highlighting the need for bold, systemic solutions that disrupt the status quo. Together, these dimensions reveal that the path forward requires not just a definition of UPFs but a fundamental reimagining of food policy—one that centers equity, accountability, and collective health rights.