How Industrial Food Changed the American Table

There is something peculiar about a food culture in which a loaf of bread can contain more ingredients than an entire dinner. Flour, water, salt, and yeast have sustained breadmaking for centuries. In an American supermarket, they may share the label with emulsifiers, preservatives, added sugars, vegetable oils, enzymes, and compounds intended to maintain softness or extend shelf life. The resulting loaf must satisfy requirements that have little to do with breadmaking: consistency across enormous production runs, resistance to deterioration during transportation, and a predictable appearance after days or weeks on a supermarket shelf. What began as an agricultural product, transformed through a handful of ingredients and a practiced technique, has become an exercise in industrial formulation.

I have spent much of my culinary career thinking about ingredients, particularly the differences between traditional European cooking and the products that have come to represent it in America. A proper tomato sauce requires very little intervention. The same is true of fresh pasta, carefully fermented bread, or a well-made cheese. The work lies in sourcing, technique, patience, and understanding how ingredients behave. Restaurant kitchens have their own commercial demands, and any chef who has managed one understands the importance of consistency. There is a considerable difference, however, between achieving that consistency through disciplined preparation and manufacturing a product whose characteristics must remain virtually unchanged regardless of time, place, or season.

Industrial food now dominates American consumption. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ultra-processed products supplied an average of 55 percent of the calories Americans consumed during August 2021–August 2023. Among children ages one through eighteen, the figure reached 61.9 percent.¹ Food manufacturing has altered the composition of ordinary meals on a scale that makes its biological consequences impossible to dismiss as a matter of individual preference. Researchers are examining the effects of food structure, refining processes, additive combinations, chemical contaminants, and consumption patterns on metabolism, appetite regulation, intestinal function, and immune activity. Some relationships are well established. Others are only beginning to emerge from experimental research.

The Formulated American Diet

Processing has preserved food and improved its safety for centuries. Pasteurization reduces infectious disease, freezing extends the availability of seasonal produce, and canning makes nutritious ingredients accessible well beyond their harvest. Fermentation, milling, drying, and preservation remain fundamental to traditional cooking. Ultra-processing describes a different category of industrial production, frequently involving refined ingredients, extracted food components, reconstructed food structures, and additives that establish particular flavors, textures, and physical characteristics. Under the NOVA classification system, these formulations include many packaged baked goods, sweetened cereals, soft drinks, reconstituted meat products, and ready-to-eat meals. Their nutritional characteristics vary, although they increasingly occupy the place once held by foods prepared from recognizable ingredients.

A 2024 umbrella review published in The BMJ examined 45 pooled analyses involving nearly 9.9 million participants. Greater ultra-processed food consumption was associated with adverse outcomes across 32 health measures, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and mortality.² The strength of the evidence differed considerably between outcomes. A dose-response analysis reported a relative risk of 1.12 for type 2 diabetes, while the certainty of many other associations remained low or very low. The review brought together a substantial body of epidemiological evidence, with the familiar limitations of observational research: dietary composition, socioeconomic circumstances, physical activity, and other characteristics can influence the relationships detected between food consumption and disease.

The prevalence of industrial additives provides another measure of the transformation. A study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics examined American household grocery purchases in 2001 and 2019. The volume-weighted share of purchased packaged products containing the additive classes studied increased from 49.6 to 59.5 percent. The average number of identified additives per purchased product rose from 3.7 to 4.5.³ These figures describe selected additive categories in household purchases, rather than every ingredient consumed nationally. They document a substantial change in the composition of products Americans bring home. A separate analysis of approximately 3.1 million package records from 2005 through 2021 identified at least one of ten specified industrial or artificial ingredient categories in more than half the products examined.⁴

The American Food Supply in Three Numbers

55.0%

Of calories consumed by Americans ages one and older came from ultra-processed foods during August 2021–August 2023, according to nationally representative CDC dietary data.¹

59.5%

Of the volume of packaged food and beverage products purchased by households in a 2019 U.S. consumer panel contained at least one of the studied additive classes, compared with 49.6 percent in 2001.³

71%

Of 651 commercial infant and toddler food products sampled from ten major U.S. grocery retailers were classified as ultra-processed in a 2026 study.⁵

The infant-food findings deserve particular attention. Researchers identified additives in 71 percent of the sampled products, including flavor enhancers in 36 percent, thickeners in 29 percent, and emulsifiers and colors in 19 percent each. Some products contained as many as 56 ingredients.⁵ The sample was assembled from products sold by major retailers and does not establish the proportion of all infant food consumed nationally. It does provide a detailed account of the formulations marketed to children during the earliest stages of dietary development, when repeated exposure contributes to the formation of food preferences and expectations of sweetness, texture, and flavor.

The Physiology of Processed Food

In 2019, researchers at the National Institutes of Health placed twenty adults on two controlled diets, each lasting fourteen days. One consisted of ultra-processed foods; the other emphasized unprocessed foods. The diets were designed to match several major nutritional characteristics, and participants could eat as much as they wished. During the ultra-processed phase, participants consumed approximately 508 additional calories daily and gained an average of 0.9 kilograms. During the unprocessed phase, they lost approximately the same amount.⁶ The experiment was small, but its controlled setting offered unusually direct evidence that differences between dietary formulations could influence consumption and body weight over a short period.

A randomized British trial published in Nature Medicine in 2025 provided minimally processed and ultra-processed diets that both followed national healthy-eating guidance. Participants lost weight on each diet over eight weeks, with average reductions of 2.06 percent and 1.05 percent of starting body weight, respectively.⁷ The trial strengthened the experimental evidence that dietary processing characteristics can influence weight outcomes, although energy density and other differences between foods remain possible explanations for part of the effect. These considerations have prompted researchers to examine food structure and the physical processes of eating with considerably greater attention.

In October 2026, researchers publishing in Nature Metabolism compared ultra-processed and non-ultra-processed meals closely matched for calories, macronutrients, fiber, sodium, water, glycemic index, and other measured characteristics. Among the 32 participants completing both metabolic testing sessions, the ultra-processed meals produced greater insulin responses and differences in energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation. The broader study also examined neural responses to food-related cues.⁸ The results concern acute responses to particular test meals, with differences in protein sources, additives, and food structure among the possible contributors. They demonstrate that foods appearing nutritionally comparable through conventional measurements can produce different physiological responses.

The physical properties of food have measurable consequences as well. In another randomized crossover trial, 41 participants consumed two ultra-processed diets over separate fourteen-day periods. One featured textures encouraging slower eating, the other textures facilitating faster consumption. Participants consumed an average of 369 fewer calories daily on the slower-eating diet, despite the diets being matched for palatability, energy offered, and several other characteristics. No significant between-diet difference in body weight emerged over the short intervention.⁹ Eating rate alone nevertheless produced a substantial change in energy intake.

The resistance of properly cooked pasta, the density of aged cheese, the structure of bread, and the texture of legumes all contribute to the experience of eating. Grinding, extrusion, aeration, lubrication, and other industrial techniques can manipulate those properties, sometimes allowing foods to be consumed more rapidly. Their effects extend into digestion, nutrient availability, and the physiological processes involved in satiety. Food texture, long understood as a central concern of cooking, has become an increasingly important subject of metabolic research.

The Chemistry of Industrial Ingredients

Few ingredients have attracted as much recent controversy as refined vegetable oils. Soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower, and canola oils appear throughout American packaged foods, particularly in snacks, dressings, baked goods, sauces, and prepared meals. Their prevalence has encouraged claims that omega-6 fatty acids inherently promote chronic inflammation. Human clinical evidence offers little support for that generalization. Linoleic acid is an essential polyunsaturated fatty acid, and a systematic review of randomized trials found no consistent elevation in conventional inflammatory markers when its consumption increased among healthy adults.¹⁰ The composition of an oil remains relevant to health, but the industrial processes through which it is refined and subsequently handled introduce separate considerations.

High-temperature refining can generate 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl esters, contaminants that may release compounds associated with kidney damage, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenic effects in experimental animals. The FDA has investigated their presence in refined oils and products containing them, including infant formula, and has documented manufacturing efforts that substantially reduced concentrations in the American formula supply.¹¹ The European Union establishes maximum permitted levels for these contaminants in specified oils and foods, with revised provisions adopted in 2026 and additional requirements taking effect in January 2027.¹² The regulatory attention concerns identifiable chemical compounds generated during processing, their toxicological properties, and the amounts consumers may encounter.

Extra-virgin olive oil occupies a different position in this discussion because its production relies on mechanical extraction without the high-temperature deodorization used in many refined oils. Properly produced oil retains aromatic compounds and naturally occurring phenolics, whose concentrations depend on olive variety, cultivation, extraction, storage, and age. These characteristics are central to its culinary value. An olive oil selected for flavor, freshness, and suitability to a particular preparation provides something considerably more specific than an interchangeable source of fat. The distinction is rooted in the methods of production and the composition of the finished ingredient.

Industrial trans fats offer a clearer example of an established manufacturing-related health hazard. Produced through partial hydrogenation, they were historically valued for stability, consistency, and commercial performance in baked goods, shortenings, and fried products. Their relationship with cardiovascular disease is extensively documented. The World Health Organization estimates that industrially produced trans fats contribute to more than 278,000 deaths annually worldwide.¹³ Regulatory restrictions and reformulation have since eliminated partially hydrogenated oils from much of the American food supply. Their history illustrates the consequences of widespread industrial formulation and the significance of evaluating ingredients as scientific evidence develops.

Bread and the Industrialization of Tradition

Breadmaking offers an unusually tangible comparison between American and European food production. Traditional French loaves, regional Italian breads, and Spanish sourdough preparations depend on flour selection, hydration, fermentation, handling, and baking technique. Those practices determine flavor, structure, crust, and keeping quality. Commercial breadmaking may employ additional processing aids and dough conditioners to achieve consistent volume, softness, and performance under industrial conditions. The differences are visible in some ingredient lists, although traditional and highly formulated bread can be found on both sides of the Atlantic.

Potassium bromate, used as a flour treatment agent to strengthen dough, has historically been permitted in specified American baking applications. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies potassium bromate as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based principally on evidence from animal studies.¹⁴ It is not authorized as a food additive in the European Union. Its legal status does not establish its prevalence in contemporary American bread, and the amount remaining after baking depends on formulation and processing. The scientific concern concerns a specific substance and its toxicological properties, rather than wheat or gluten itself.

Azodicarbonamide, another dough conditioner, has been permitted in American food production at concentrations up to 45 parts per million relative to flour weight. The compound is not authorized as a food additive in the EU. In May 2026, the FDA announced renewed safety assessments of azodicarbonamide and the antioxidant BHT, including requests for additional evidence concerning use and exposure.¹⁵ Questions involving azodicarbonamide include processing byproducts and findings from experimental toxicology. Current authorization, manufacturer use, and demonstrated human disease risk require separate evaluation, especially when comparing regulatory systems.

The chemistry of wheat introduces further distinctions. Varieties differ in protein composition, while milling and fermentation influence the physical structure and digestibility of bread. Gluten triggers an established autoimmune response in genetically susceptible people with celiac disease, regardless of the grain's geographic origin. Ordinary sourdough remains unsafe for people with celiac disease unless specifically manufactured and verified as gluten-free. For other individuals reporting wheat-related gastrointestinal symptoms, fermentable carbohydrates may contribute. In a double-blind crossover experiment involving 59 participants with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity, fructans produced more symptoms than gluten itself.¹⁶ These findings direct attention toward wheat composition, fermentation, and individual physiology, without supporting broad claims about American wheat being inherently more toxic than European grain.

The commercial appeal of an exceptionally soft loaf that remains uniform for weeks is easy to understand. Its characteristics can be reproduced in quantities that traditional bakeries were never intended to supply. Those manufacturing priorities also influence the properties that consumers come to regard as normal bread. In European and American artisan bakeries alike, flour, fermentation, time, and technique continue to produce varieties of bread whose differences are regarded as part of their quality.

Dairy, Soy, and the Food Matrix

Milk, cultured yogurt, fresh cheese, aged cheese, and sweetened dairy desserts differ substantially in composition and manufacture. Fermentation changes lactose content and microbial characteristics; aging alters moisture, flavor, and protein structure; industrial formulation may introduce sugars, stabilizers, flavorings, and other ingredients. A properly aged Parmigiano Reggiano develops through a carefully controlled relationship between milk, cultures, salt, and time. Its structure and nutritional characteristics cannot be inferred from the label on a commercially formulated cheese sauce. Research into the dairy food matrix has encouraged greater attention to how nutrients behave within a finished food, including differences that conventional calculations of saturated fat content may overlook.

Traditional fermented dairy products have shown favorable associations with some cardiometabolic outcomes, although findings differ by product and study design. Milk allergy and lactose intolerance also require specific consideration. Soy illustrates similar differences between ingredient forms. Whole soybeans, tofu, tempeh, soy milk, protein isolates, lecithin, and refined soybean oil possess distinct properties and applications. Their nutritional effects cannot reasonably be assumed to be identical. Soy allergy involves a specific immune response to relevant proteins; ordinary soy consumption has not been established as a general cause of autoimmune disease. Culinary practice has long relied on distinctions between ingredients, their preparation, and their intended purpose, and those distinctions remain essential to interpreting nutritional research.

Beyond the Ingredient Label

Manufacturing introduces chemical exposures that do not always appear in a food's list of ingredients. Substances can migrate from packaging, enter through processing equipment, or form during refining, heating, and storage. The extent of migration depends on the materials involved, temperature, duration of contact, and the composition of the food. These exposures complicate comparisons based solely on whether a packaged product contains a recognizable ingredient or a particular additive.

Bisphenol A provides an important example. Historically used in certain plastics and resins, including some food-contact materials, BPA underwent a major reassessment by the European Food Safety Authority. EFSA identified immune-system effects as a central concern and sharply reduced its tolerable daily intake. In December 2024, the European Commission adopted a ban on BPA in food-contact materials, subject to transitional provisions and specified exceptions.¹⁷ The action addressed toxicological concerns that extended beyond conventional nutritional composition. Evidence connecting BPA exposure to the development of particular autoimmune diseases in humans remains less conclusive than the regulatory assessment of its potential immune effects.

Phthalates and certain PFAS present additional questions involving endocrine activity, immune responses, and environmental contamination. Their potential pathways include food-contact materials, processing equipment, water, agricultural soils, and other sources. Research into these substances requires measurements of actual exposure and careful attention to the properties of individual compounds. Their possible presence in food cannot be established from an ingredient label, while their mere detection does not determine the likelihood of clinical harm.

Emulsifiers introduce a related but distinct area of investigation. Used to stabilize mixtures and control texture, substances such as carboxymethylcellulose, polysorbate 80, and carrageenan have been studied for potential effects on the intestinal microbiome and barrier function. A randomized human trial published in 2026 examined five emulsifiers and found changes in selected microbial outcomes, including reduced concentrations of certain microbial metabolites and a change in intestinal permeability measurements associated with carrageenan exposure. The researchers did not identify significant corresponding changes in systemic inflammatory or cardiometabolic endpoints.¹⁸ The findings provide evidence of biological effects under controlled conditions while leaving their longer-term clinical significance unresolved.

A French investigation approached additives through the combinations in which they are consumed. In the NutriNet-Santé cohort, researchers followed 108,643 adults and identified two commonly consumed additive mixtures associated with increased type 2 diabetes incidence. The respective hazard ratios were 1.08 and 1.13 per standard-deviation increase in mixture scores.¹⁹ The associations persisted after adjustments for numerous dietary and lifestyle factors, although the observational design cannot establish causation. The mixtures included ingredients used for preservation, texture, sweetness, color, and acidity regulation, reflecting the complexity of real commercial formulations.

Flavor labeling presents another substantial question about transparency. In a December 2025 report, the Center for Science in the Public Interest examined 450,659 records in the USDA's branded food database. The organization found that 51 percent listed some form of added flavoring, including natural or artificial flavors. Twenty-eight percent listed natural flavor without artificial flavor, 5 percent listed artificial flavor without natural flavor, and another 12 percent included both.²⁰ These figures describe ingredient-list terminology in a commercial product database, not the proportion of the American diet composed of flavoring chemicals. They also reveal how frequently manufacturers rely on broad flavor declarations that provide limited information about the individual compounds involved.

The Regulatory Divide

The European Union and United States maintain different systems for authorizing and reviewing food additives. EU rules specify permitted uses and conditions for approved substances across member states, while American law includes FDA food additive approvals and the Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, pathway. Under the existing American framework, a qualifying GRAS determination does not necessarily require the manufacturer to submit a notice to the FDA. The agency has proposed changes intended to increase transparency and strengthen oversight, alongside a more systematic program for reviewing chemicals already in the food supply.²¹ These institutional differences influence how evidence is evaluated and when regulatory authorities intervene.

Titanium dioxide demonstrates the consequences of divergent assessments. The white pigment has been used in confectionery, bakery products, and other foods. In 2021, EFSA concluded that concerns about potential genotoxicity from titanium dioxide particles could not be excluded. The European Commission withdrew its food additive authorization in 2022.²² The FDA continues to permit titanium dioxide under specified conditions, including a maximum of 1 percent by weight in food, while reviewing a petition requesting withdrawal of its authorization.²³ Great Britain has maintained a separate authorization allowing the additive in food, illustrating that regulatory treatment differs even within Europe.²⁴ The EU decision reflected uncertainty about genetic toxicity, rather than a demonstrated population-level increase in disease caused by ordinary consumption.

Red No. 3 offers another example of how legal standards shape regulatory action. In January 2025, the FDA revoked authorization for its use in food, with a reformulation deadline of January 15, 2027. The decision followed evidence of thyroid tumors in male rats exposed to high doses and the requirements of the Delaney Clause, which prohibits authorization of color additives shown to induce cancer in humans or animals. The FDA has stated that the mechanism implicated in those rat findings is not known to occur in humans, and that available evidence has not established the same cancer risk in people.²⁵ The prohibition has a specific legal and toxicological history that should inform any comparison with international food regulations.

Brominated vegetable oil, formerly used to keep citrus flavorings suspended in certain beverages, was another subject of federal reassessment. The FDA revoked its authorization in 2024 after research raised concerns about bromine accumulation and thyroid effects in experimental animals.²⁶ Many manufacturers had already discontinued its use, making historical authorization a poor measure of contemporary exposure. Ingredient prevalence, scientific findings, and the timing of regulatory decisions each contribute different information about the safety of a national food supply. Direct comparisons between countries require all three.

The Mediterranean Table

Traditional Mediterranean diets contain considerable regional variation, particularly in their reliance on grains, legumes, vegetables, olive oil, seafood, dairy, and preserved foods. Italian, French, and Spanish culinary practices also reflect different agricultural conditions, local products, and methods of preparation. Their shared reputation for good eating has acquired a commercial life of its own, sometimes reducing an entire range of food cultures to the presence of olive oil or a few recognizable ingredients. Clinical research has generally examined broader dietary patterns, where the relationship among foods matters as much as any single component.

Spain's PREDIMED trial remains a major contribution to that research. In a corrected analysis published in 2018, adults at elevated cardiovascular risk who followed Mediterranean diets supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts experienced fewer major cardiovascular events than those in a control group. The reported hazard ratios were 0.69 and 0.72.²⁷ The original study required reanalysis and republication after irregularities in randomization were identified. The corrected findings supported cardiovascular benefits associated with the interventions, though they cannot isolate every contribution made by individual foods.

The traditional culinary practices associated with these dietary patterns place particular emphasis on ingredients whose properties remain recognizable through preparation. Legumes retain their structure, olive oil contributes flavor and texture, and aged cheeses develop through fermentation and controlled maturation. The results depend on choices made throughout cultivation, sourcing, processing, and cooking. A high-quality olive oil contributes different characteristics from a neutral refined oil; similarly, the origin and aging of Parmigiano Reggiano influence qualities that cannot be recreated simply by combining isolated cheese proteins and flavorings.

Modern Mediterranean populations also consume substantial quantities of industrial convenience foods, and the commercial food environment continues to change across Europe. Regulatory similarities between member states coexist with differences in dietary habits, household cooking, food retail, and the relative consumption of ultra-processed products. Italy, France, and Spain therefore provide useful comparisons with the United States through their food cultures as well as their regulations. Their traditions offer examples of dietary patterns supported by clinical evidence, while their contemporary food markets reflect many of the same industrial pressures shaping American consumption.

Diet and Autoimmunity

The relationship between food and inflammatory disease requires careful distinctions between underlying mechanisms. Chronic low-grade inflammation associated with excess adiposity and metabolic dysfunction differs from the immune responses responsible for celiac disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis. These diseases involve different genetic susceptibilities, immune pathways, and environmental factors. Their incidence and prevalence have also followed different trajectories, making a single dietary explanation for increasing autoimmune diagnoses scientifically inadequate.

Celiac disease provides the clearest example of a food-triggered autoimmune condition, with gluten initiating a defined immune response in susceptible individuals. Studies of inflammatory bowel disease have identified associations involving dietary patterns, additives, intestinal permeability, and microbial communities. The contribution of particular formulations to disease onset remains under investigation. Dietary interventions may influence symptoms or disease activity without establishing that the same dietary factors caused the underlying disorder. These are clinically important differences when assessing claims about gluten, emulsifiers, dairy, or other frequently criticized ingredients.

A 2023 study published in The Lancet examined health records from approximately 22 million people in the United Kingdom and found substantial variation in the incidence of nineteen autoimmune diseases. Celiac disease, Sjögren's syndrome, and Graves' disease showed significant increases, while pernicious anemia and Hashimoto's thyroiditis declined during the period examined.²⁸ Researchers also identified socioeconomic, demographic, geographic, and seasonal patterns. The findings support investigation of multiple environmental influences, including diet, while illustrating the limitations of presenting autoimmune disease as a single uniformly expanding phenomenon.

Food allergy adds another dimension, particularly during childhood. Reactions to milk, soy, wheat, peanuts, and other foods involve specific immune mechanisms, and early-life immune development is influenced by skin-barrier function, microbial exposures, and the timing of food introduction. Commercial infant foods introduce a range of ingredients and textures during the same developmental period. Determining whether particular manufacturing practices influence long-term immune outcomes will require research that measures exposure accurately and accounts for the many factors involved in immune development.

The Economics of Convenience

Industrial food production has developed within an economic system that rewards manufacturing consistency, long shelf life, inexpensive ingredients, and efficient distribution. Refined starches, concentrated sweeteners, oils, protein isolates, and functional additives allow manufacturers to reproduce familiar characteristics across enormous quantities of products. Packaging and formulation also determine how long a food can travel, how much refrigeration it requires, and how predictably it performs in retail. These considerations shape the commercial availability of food long before a consumer encounters it.

Household circumstances influence consumption just as substantially. Food prices, work schedules, childcare responsibilities, transportation, kitchen access, and preparation time determine the practical choices available to families. Industrial convenience has become thoroughly integrated into American life because its products answer immediate needs within those constraints. Greater dependence on packaged food consequently reflects the structure of employment, household economics, and food distribution alongside individual preferences.

Restaurant kitchens also operate under financial pressure, and consistency is indispensable to their work. The difference lies in the methods used to achieve it. Proper preparation can produce a dependable result while preserving the qualities of fresh ingredients, fermentation, regional variation, and seasonality. Industrial manufacturing frequently requires those qualities to be standardized, stabilized, or reconstructed. As commercially formulated foods become more familiar, they also influence expectations of texture, sweetness, availability, and shelf life. Those expectations eventually shape what consumers recognize as ordinary food.

The Value of an Ingredient

When I select an olive oil, a flour, a cheese, or a particular variety of tomato, I consider far more than the nutritional values printed on a package. Origin, cultivation, processing, freshness, storage, and preparation determine how an ingredient performs in the kitchen. An olive oil that has lost its aroma, flour poorly suited to a particular fermentation, or a cheese made without regard for its traditional method changes the finished dish. Those differences are evident to anyone working closely with the ingredients, even when they are difficult to express through standardized nutritional measurements.

Modern research has given some of these distinctions a greater physiological significance. Food structure can influence metabolic responses and energy intake. Refining can introduce measurable contaminants. Additives may affect microbial communities or other biological processes, with their clinical consequences varying by compound and exposure. Regulatory authorities continue to revise their assessments as new evidence becomes available. The effects of these changes on human health deserve the same attention given to conventional nutrients, particularly in a country where manufactured formulations provide most of the calories consumed.

The American food system has achieved an extraordinary degree of efficiency, consistency, and convenience. Its products can be transported across continents, stored for extended periods, and reproduced with remarkable precision. Those achievements have changed the daily experience of eating, along with the ingredients and preparations that consumers have come to expect. The quality of food still begins with what it is made from, how it is produced, and what happens to it before it reaches the table. Those are familiar considerations in a good kitchen. They deserve an equally important place in the science and regulation of the modern food supply.

References

1. Williams, A. M., Couch, C. A., Emmerich, S. D., & Ogburn, D. F. (2025). Ultra-processed food consumption in youth and adults: United States, August 2021–August 2023. NCHS Data Brief, No. 536. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db536.htm

2. Lane, M. M., et al. (2024). Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: Umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ, 384, e077310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310

3. Dunford, E. K., Miles, D. R., & Popkin, B. M. (2023). Food additives in ultra-processed packaged foods: An examination of US household grocery store purchases. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 123(6), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2022.11.007

4. Rojas, C., & Cengiz, D. (2025). Presence of artificial and processed food additives in the U.S.: Evidence from ingredients in food packaging. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.360932

5. Dunford, E. K., Pries, A., Calvo, M. S., & Coyle, D. H. (2026). Tiny tummies, big questions: Unpacking ultra-processed ingredients and additives in complementary foods in the United States. Nutrients, 18(4), 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18040584

6. Hall, K. D., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67–77.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008

7. Dicken, S. J., et al. (2025). Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: A randomized, crossover trial. Nature Medicine, 31, 3297–3308. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03842-0

8. Hutelin, Z., Ahrens, M., Baugh, M. E., et al. (2026). Metabolic and neural responses to ultraprocessed foods: A randomized, controlled, crossover study. Nature Metabolism, 8, 2152–2164. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-026-01619-4

9. Forde, C. G., et al. (2026). Eating rate has sustained effects on energy intake from ultraprocessed diets: A 2-week ad libitum dietary randomized controlled crossover trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 123(4), Article 101122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.11.012

10. Johnson, G. H., & Fritsche, K. (2012). Effect of dietary linoleic acid on markers of inflammation in healthy persons: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(7), 1029–1041.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.03.029

11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). 3-Monochloropropane-1,2-diol (MCPD) esters and glycidyl esters. https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/3-monochloropropane-12-diol-mcpd-esters-and-glycidyl-esters

12. European Commission. (2026). Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/1825 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of 3-MCPD, 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters in certain foods. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32026R1825

13. World Health Organization. (2024). Trans fat. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/trans-fat/

14. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (1999). Some chemicals that cause tumours of the kidney or urinary bladder in rodents and some other substances. IARC Monographs, Volume 73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK402036/

15. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026). FDA finalizes food chemical safety post-market assessment program, launches reassessment of BHT, ADA. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-finalizes-food-chemical-safety-post-market-assessment-program-launches-reassessment-bht-ada

16. Skodje, G. I., et al. (2018). Fructan, rather than gluten, induces symptoms in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Gastroenterology, 154(3), 529–539.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.10.040

17. European Commission. (2024). Commission adopts ban of bisphenol A in food contact materials. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety-news/commission-adopts-ban-bisphenol-food-contact-materials-2024-12-19_en

18. Wellens, J., et al. (2026). Effect of five dietary emulsifiers on inflammation, permeability, and the gut microbiome: A placebo-controlled randomized trial. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 24(4), 1092–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2025.08.005

19. Payen de la Garanderie, M., et al. (2025). Food additive mixtures and type 2 diabetes incidence: Results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. PLOS Medicine, 22(4), e1004570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004570

20. Galligan, T., Jose, J., Musicus, A., & Sorscher, S. (2025). Hidden ingredients: What are “flavors” and “spices,” and are they safe? Center for Science in the Public Interest. https://www.cspi.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/CSPI_FlavorReport2025_final.pdf

21. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026). Understanding how the FDA regulates food additives and GRAS ingredients. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-and-gras-ingredients-information-consumers/understanding-how-fda-regulates-food-additives-and-gras-ingredients

22. European Commission. (2022). Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/63 concerning the food additive titanium dioxide (E171). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/63/oj/eng

23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Titanium dioxide as a color additive in foods. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/titanium-dioxide-color-additive-foods

24. Food Standards Agency. (2025). Authorised regulated food and feed products for Great Britain: Titanium dioxide (E171). https://data.food.gov.uk/regulated-products/food_authorisations/e-171

25. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2025). FDA to revoke authorization for the use of Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/fdc-red-no-3

26. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Brominated vegetable oil (BVO). https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/brominated-vegetable-oil-bvo

27. Estruch, R., Ros, E., Salas-Salvadó, J., et al. (2018). Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts. The New England Journal of Medicine, 378(25), e34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800389

28. Conrad, N., Misra, S., Verbakel, J. Y., et al. (2023). Incidence, prevalence, and co-occurrence of autoimmune disorders over time and by age, sex, and socioeconomic status: A population-based cohort study of 22 million individuals in the UK. The Lancet, 401(10391), 1878–1890. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00457-9