The report calls for urgent, coordinated government action to curb UPF consumption and reduce the influence of powerful multinational food corporations.

UPFs — the most industrially altered products in the Nova classification system — are characterised by additives that enhance flavour, texture and appearance. High intake has been linked to obesity, cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions.

The concept remains contested, with critics arguing that nutritionally useful foods, such as fortified cereals or flavoured yoghurts, are grouped together with items like sugary drinks or reconstituted meats.

However, the authors stress that UPFs are typically consumed as part of an overall dietary pattern that replaces whole or minimally processed foods with industrial alternatives.

They say the combined effects of multiple additives, rather than any single product, underpin the health risks.

The Series outlines how a small number of transnational corporations — including Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever and Coca-Cola — dominate UPF production.

Cheap agricultural commodities such as maize, wheat, soy and palm oil are transformed into a vast range of food-derived substances and additives. These products are engineered to be hyperpalatable, heavily marketed, and widely accessible, often displacing traditional diets.

In many high-income countries, UPFs account for about half of household food intake, and consumption is accelerating in low- and middle-income nations. The environmental impact is also significant, with industrial agriculture, processing and transport driving fossil-fuel use, while plastic packaging remains pervasive.

The report warns that the UPF industry generates huge revenues that fund lobbying efforts aimed at undermining regulations. It calls for a “comprehensive, government-led” strategy to reverse rising consumption. Recommended policies include mandatory front-of-pack warning labels, bans on marketing to children, restrictions in public institutions, taxation on UPFs, and integrating ultra-processed markers such as colours, flavours and non-sugar sweeteners into nutrient profiling systems.

The authors argue that governments must strengthen competition rules, replace voluntary agreements with binding regulations, and curb corporate interference. Civil society organisations, such as Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Food Policy Program, have already helped secure regulatory progress in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa by supporting coalitions, evaluating implemented policies and countering industry pushback.

Equity should remain central to reforms, the Series states. UPF consumption is highest among economically vulnerable groups. Any transition toward minimally processed diets must avoid exacerbating gender imbalances in household labour or worsening food insecurity among families reliant on low-cost UPF options.

The report echoes recommendations from the EAT–Lancet Commission, urging governments to redirect agricultural subsidies away from multinational corporations and toward diverse local food producers capable of supplying affordable, minimally processed, convenient foods. Revenues from UPF taxation could help fund cash transfers to support low-income households in purchasing whole foods.

Describing the UPF sector as emblematic of a food system driven by corporate profit rather than public health, the Lancet Series calls for an immediate and well-resourced global response. It says only coordinated, mutually reinforcing policies can curb harmful industry practices and reduce the dominance of UPFs in diets worldwide.