Consumer awareness and avoidance of “ultra-processed foods” is rising as the Make American Healthy Again movement and the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans prioritize ‘real food’ and cast some packaged products in a negative light, but without a formal definition for the term many consumers are left on their own to determine whether packaged, processed and ultra-processed foods can be part of a healthy diet.
This disconnect between how consumers define processing, evaluate the healthfulness of packaged products and balance these perceptions with other priorities, such as convenience, price, shelf-life, taste and safety, is creating opportunities for CPG brands, dietitians and other industry stakeholders to influence shoppers’ purchase decisions.
But to do that, stakeholders need to better understand the extent to which consumers consider processing when buying foods and beverages, how they define or evaluate it, and who is influencing them and how – all of which the International Food Information Council tackle in new research unveiled last week.
Consumer awareness of process is rising, but understanding remains murky
According to IFIC, 80% of Americans consider whether a food was processed before they buy it – up from 76% in 2023 – but that doesn’t mean they will automatically forgo “processed” products.
Only 12% of the consumers surveyed by IFIC in its 2025 Food & Health Survey said they always avoid processed foods – which is less than the 21% who said they don’t avoid processed foods. In between these extremes are the 46% of consumers who say they sometimes avoid processed foods.
The wide range of consumer responses likely stems from a lack of understanding about processing – which creates fertile ground for misinformation that could influence future shopping habits.
While nearly eight in ten Americans told IFIC they could explain what processed food is, Alyssa Pike, senior manager of food safety and nutrition communications at IFIC, said a closer look shows cracks in their confidence.
“When we look a little bit closer, I think it gets a little bit fuzzier. So, about four in 10 are saying, ‘Yes, I could explain it clearly.’ Another four in 10 are saying, ‘Yes, but I am not sure I fully understand what it is.’ And then about two in 10 are saying, ‘No, I don’t think I could explain it,’” she said.
Ultra-processed enters ‘everyday vernacular,’ but lacks shared meaning
Awareness of and confusion around ultra-processing mirrors the uptick and divide seen with processing, but to a lesser degree – suggesting there is still time to get in on the ground floor with clear communication that could influence perceptions as the term gains greater traction.
According to IFIC, four in 10 participants in the 2025 Food & Health Survey said they were familiar with the term ultra-processed food – up a significant 12 percentage points from a year earlier and from only 25% when IFIC asked about the term in a smaller spotlight survey it did in 2022.
“It is clear to say that over the last couple of years, this term has definitely gained more familiarity. It is entering the everyday vernacular. But, hearing the term is different than understanding it,” Pike said.
Given there is no formal definition of ultra-processed food, Americans who are familiar with the term use different approaches to identify it. According to IFIC, the top two are looking at the ingredient list (53%) and the Nutrition Facts panel. However, neither of these actually reveal how a product was made – just what is in it.
Far fewer consumers look for specific statements on the front of the package (25%), ask digital assistants or search engines (19%) or ask a food professional (12%).
Other strategies for identifying ultra-processed food include considering where in the store it was sold (12%), looking for a symbol on the front of pack (17%) or using a food app, like Yuka, (11%).
Whether processed food can be part of a healthy diet depends on how it is labeled
How consumers define ultra-processing is likely to influence whether they think it can be part of a healthy diet – suggesting language, including marketing and product positioning, may shape consumer perception more than actual nutrition.
“Americans seem to be somewhat split” on whether processed, including ultra-processed, foods can be part of a healthy diet, and where they fall appears to hinge in part on the terms used to describe it, Pike said.
For example, IFIC found 60% of consumers said “packaged foods” can be part of a healthy diet, but this dipped to 41% when they were described as “processed foods.” Even fewer – 29% – said foods described as “ultra-processed” could be part of a healthy diet, which is barely above the 26% who said “junk foods” can be part of a healthy diet.
This shows “the words we use are making an impact,” Pike said.
The impact of framing on how processed and ultra-process foods are perceived is underscored further by positive and negative associations revealed in IFIC research.
“There is this tension, and consumers are acknowledging that there are some positive aspects of these foods, especially conveniences, affordability, shelf life and taste,” which are attributes that speak “to the practical demands of daily life,” said Pike.
But, she added, processed food also is associated with negative aspects, including impact on health, quality of ingredients and nutrition.
Where conversations about processing take place influences sentiment
The division in how consumers perceive processing is becoming increasingly polarized online, suggesting this is where stakeholders should concentrate their messaging to offset misinformation and disinformation.
“Over the last couple of years, we’ve seen the sentiment, particularly around ultra-processed foods, go very negative,” particularly since 2022, IFIC CEO Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak said, pointing to the first part of a multi-phase social listening analysis and research initiative the organization undertook to better understand the intersection of processed foods and diet quality.
The research shows ultra-processed foods’ current sentiment is nearly four times more negative than it was in 2022 with references to it “increasingly critical, often using emotionally charged and accusatory language,” according to IFIC’s analysis. It adds that this could contribute to consumer confusion and reduce engagement with evidence-based communication.
Who is driving the conversation online and what are they saying?
At the center of digital and online conversations about processed and ultra-processed food are Millennial parents, who Kapsak says want to understand how food and ingredients may impact their health and wellbeing.
How they express their concerns vary significantly with some asking for more accessible alternatives and by extension focusing on the removal of artificial ingredients and using “simpler, more natural options,” according to IFIC.
Others take a more critical and analytical tone focused on shortcomings of the food system. They are especially focused on seed oils, added sugars and artificial ingredients, Kapsak said.
Both of these groups focus in part on ingredients – making them an important talking point for stakeholders across the value chain. These observations also highlight the opportunities for “better-for-you” positioning as many parents want options that are healthier but still accessible – such as lower-sugar cereals, cleaner-label snacks or additive-free hot dogs.
Next steps
Based on these findings, IFIC recommends stakeholders aiming to improve food, nutrition and health communication around processed food and diet quality:
- Use “consumer-friendly, values-based language for connectivity and then bridge to evidence-based concepts for improved understanding,”
- Focus on “incremental improvements,” such as pairing processed food with whole food as part of a balanced diet,
- Emphasize ingredient transparency,
- Balance convenience, affordability and taste with health.
