A majority of American adults remain skeptical that ultra-processed foods can be part of a healthy diet, according to a new survey conducted by The Harris Poll for the American Heart Association (AHA).
The poll of 2,000 people found that 57% believe ultra-processed foods cannot be healthy, highlighting a gap between public opinion and calls from health experts for more nuanced guidance.
The findings come as federal agencies continue to work on a consistent definition for ultra-processed foods, a process that remains under review.
Federal Definition Still Pending
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U. S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) submitted a proposed definition to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Aug.
10, 2026, according to the National Law Review.
The proposal was described as a research-focused white paper rather than a regulation.
It followed a joint request for information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and USDA in July 2025, which received more than 5,000 comments before the submission period closed on Oct.
23, 2025.
As of Oct. 13, 2026, the proposed definition had not been publicly released.
Despite the lack of an official definition, the AHA survey found that 90% of adults had heard of ultra-processed foods, but only about one-third considered themselves very or extremely familiar with the category.
Even so, 72% said they could confidently identify whether a food was ultra-processed, and roughly two-thirds believed they could explain the term to another person.
Public preferences also lean toward less processed options.
According to the survey, 54% of respondents believed processed foods were always healthier than ultra-processed alternatives, while 83% said whole foods were preferable to processed foods.
When describing ultra-processed foods, 38% associated the category with artificial additives, chemicals, dyes or difficult-to-pronounce ingredients.
Another 23% pointed to intensive industrial processing or substantial changes from a food's natural state, while 15% associated the category with foods high in sugar, salt or fat.
Labels appear to influence consumer judgments.
The survey found that 76% of Americans considered products labeled ultra-processed unhealthy, while 62% viewed products labeled not ultra-processed as good for them.
Overall, 71% said they were trying to avoid ultra-processed foods, with added sugar, sodium and saturated fat among their leading concerns, cited by 80%, 79% and 78%, respectively.
Trust in guidance varied by source.
The AHA survey found that 87% of respondents trusted their health care providers to categorize foods, and 78% trusted health-focused nonprofit organizations.
Only 45% trusted the federal government for this guidance, while 22% said they had no faith in it for ultra-processed food labeling.
Mariell Jessup, the AHA's chief science and medical officer, said a clear definition could support nutrition research and healthier eating while emphasizing that processing methods alone do not provide a complete picture of a food's nutritional value.
"Defining ultra-processed foods would represent an important step to encourage healthy eating, but additional policy actions are also needed," Jessup said.
Jessup also emphasized the importance of providing consumers with information about both food processing and nutritional composition.
The AHA has continued to advocate for mandatory front-of-package nutrition labeling alongside a clearer classification framework.
Health experts have cautioned against treating all ultra-processed products as nutritionally equivalent.
The Nova classification, introduced in 2009, groups a broad range of industrially formulated foods together, including products with substantially different nutritional profiles.
The AHA has recommended prioritizing minimally processed ingredients while acknowledging that some ultra-processed foods, particularly fiber-rich products, may offer nutritional benefits.
Policy and Legal Battles Brew
The debate has also expanded into government policy and legal disputes.
California, Arizona and Virginia are among the states pursuing measures to reduce ultra-processed foods in school settings, while California has authorized a voluntary front-of-package certification for qualifying products.
California's AB 1264, signed in 2025, established a statutory definition for ultra-processed foods in school food programs.
Under the law, vendor reporting begins in 2028, and sales of designated ultra-processed foods of concern in schools are prohibited beginning July 1, 2032.
Legal challenges are developing alongside these policy changes.
In December 2025, San Francisco's city attorney sued 10 major food manufacturers, alleging that ultra-processed foods contributed to a public health crisis.
The complaint seeks restitution, civil penalties and other remedies under California law.
The forthcoming federal definition could influence nutrition research, school meal standards, food procurement, labeling practices and future enforcement or litigation.
Its eventual reach will depend on the criteria federal agencies adopt, including whether the classification emphasizes processing methods, ingredients, nutritional profiles or a combination of those factors.
