On 29 January, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced the first of two Senate confirmation hearings for his nomination as Health and Human Services Secretary under President Donald Trump. Wielding immense influence over domestic and global health policy, analysts have framed Kennedy's hearing as the most consequential in Trump's Cabinet in light of his divisive political agenda.
An active proponent of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, Kennedy's potential confirmation has alarmed medical experts who fear further disruptions to childhood immunisation policies amid declining vaccination rates in the US. Indeed, his scientifically baseless, ideologically driven health policy approach threatens to exacerbate parents' growing fear of vaccines.
Beyond vaccines, Kennedy's similarly reckless stance on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) could further entrench an increasingly alarmist debate. Poorly defined and misunderstood, the UPF term lumps together products with widely diverging health profiles, risking serious policy misfires. Instead of fear-driven narratives, science-based public health strategies are needed to promote balanced, informed dietary choices.
US Leading Anti-UPF Hysteria
Over the past year, the debate over ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has significantly intensified, with few figures as vocal on the issue as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Concerningly, his potential confirmation as US health secretary could provide a powerful platform for turning misguided, unscientific rhetoric into policy. California is already moving in this direction—Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order directing state agencies to explore ways to limit UPF purchases, including possible warning labels, which could embolden similar efforts in state legislatures across the country.
Kennedy's confirmation hearing notably arrives shortly after the landmark lawsuit filed in December by a Pennsylvania teenager against Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Kraft Heinz, and eight other industrial food giants, accusing the sector of engineering UPFs to be as addictive as cigarettes. While the case is unprecedented, it reflects a broader shift toward treating UPFs as a public health crisis akin to Big Tobacco—a dangerous and irresponsible comparison masking the reality that nutritional science is far more complex than the discourse suggests.
In Europe, the UPF debate has similarly veered towards hysteria, although the EU and individual member-states have yet to adopt concrete measures. Bodies like the UK's Scientific Advisory Committee have tempered preliminary concerns over certain UPFs by emphasising how more research is needed before drawing definitive conclusions—which Kennedy and his supporters refuse to concede. As pressure mounts internationally, UK and EU policymakers must resist the temptation to mirror the US and instead pursue a balanced path grounded in the latest research.
Unpacking UPFs
Indeed, the complexities of the UPF debate must be brought to the fore before implementing hasty regulation. An expanding group of health experts is calling for a greater degree of nuance, citing the fundamental fallacy of associating UPFs with absolute nutritional values. Despite popular misconception, the NOVA classification system was initially developed to measure the extent to which a product has been processed, not its immediate nutritional health implications—a simple fact that has been overlooked by misleading research and media coverage.
Referring to a study published last August, London Metropolitan University professor Hilda Mulrooney has questioned its authors' total reliance on the unreliable NOVA system, criticising this research's false assumption "that the health implications of a foodstuff are based only on the degree of processing, rather than their nutritional content." Concerningly, as nutritional scientists have cautioned, NOVA is increasingly seen as an arbiter of product healthiness despite the system's glaring inconsistencies. Experts themselves disagree on the Nova classification, with one study finding only 30% agreement on food placement, indicating significantly diverging criteria across studies.
Moreover, grouping foods under a single UPF umbrella actively undermines the clarity consumers need from nutritional guidance. University of Cambridge professor Giles Yeo has notably warned that the UPF term remains "too broad a church," with products ranging from sugary sodas to nutrient-rich whole-grain bread and tofu currently placed in the same UPF basket. Supermarket wholemeal bread, for instance, is classified as a UPF simply because of its industrial production despite being high in fiber and whole grains. Even the WHO recognises that UPFs, like plant-based meat replacements, are "not associated with risk of multimorbidity."
Broad-Church Approach Contradicting Dietary Guidelines
As these findings highlight, treating all processed foods as inherently unhealthy ignores important distinctions and risks demonising products that can play a valuable role in a balanced diet. Plant-based meat alternatives have been one of the biggest casualties of this broad definition of UPFs despite their health and sustainability benefits. Offering high fiber and protein with no cholesterol and lower saturated fat than meat, plant-based alternatives have been endorsed by the likes of the American Heart Association, while new European research reinforces their role in a healthy diet.
A recent U.S. dietary report—suggesting guidelines RFK Jr. could adopt later this year if confirmed—promotes plant-based proteins like beans and lentils while cutting red meat, sugar, and sodium. Yet, anti-UPF alarmism contradicts these goals by vilifying foods that support them, including nutrient-rich UPFs like baked beans, whole-grain bread, and plant-based meats. Across the Atlantic, Germany's updated dietary guidelines for 2024 similarly urge cutting meat, limiting dairy, and making plant-based foods 75% of the diet, mirroring the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet.
European climate and consumer groups are pushing the EU for a Plant-Based Diet Action Plan this year, in line with past calls from leading EU scientific advisors for the bloc to transition towards plant-based diets to tackle obesity and climate change. Looking ahead, food systems must evolve to achieve vital health and sustainability objectives, and UPFs like plant-based meat alternatives are clearly part of the solution.
The Bottom Line
Regardless of his confirmation hearing's outcome, Kennedy's nomination reflects a broader shift in Trump's second term, where ideology and fear increasingly overshadow science in public health debates. From blind UPF bashing to vaccine skepticism, sensationalism is replacing nuance, leading to policies that mislead rather than inform.
In this climate, Europe has a chance to take a different path—one that upholds rigorous, evidence-based regulation over reactionary measures. Rather than being swayed by the U.S.'s alarmist narrative on UPFs, European policymakers must focus on policies that help consumers follow balanced, nutritious diets that support public health and sustainability goals.
