Walk into almost any gas station, grocery store, school cafeteria, or checkout line in America, and the message is hard to miss: the easiest food to buy is often the worst food to live on.
Soda is cold and waiting. Chips are stacked at eye level. Candy is beside the register. Sugary cereals are wrapped in cartoons. Packaged snacks are cheap, portable, and everywhere. Real food is there too, but it often costs more, takes longer, spoils faster, or sits farther from the center of daily life.
This is usually described as personal choice. And sometimes it is.
An adult eating dessert after dinner, drinking a soda, or buying a bag of chips is making a choice. Adults should be allowed to make imperfect choices. Freedom includes the freedom to eat things that are not good for us.
But that explanation only goes so far.
When the same unhealthy products are engineered for overconsumption, marketed to children, dressed up with confusing health claims, made cheaper than healthier alternatives, and placed everywhere people live, shop, learn, and work, it stops being just a private decision.
It becomes a public environment.
And public environments are exactly where regulation has a job to do.
A simple rule can help us see why:
People should be free to make their own choices unless those choices seriously harm, endanger, deceive, or trap other people.
Put more bluntly:
Your freedom ends where serious harm to others begins.
That rule does not mean government should regulate every risk. It does not mean unhealthy food should be banned. It does not mean adults should be protected from every bad decision.
It means regulation makes sense when private freedom creates serious, predictable harm that other people cannot meaningfully understand, avoid, or consent to.
Ultra-processed foods sit directly on that line.
They are not cigarettes. They are not poison. They are not all equally dangerous. But they are also not just “personal responsibility.” They are the daily architecture of the modern American diet: cheap, convenient, heavily marketed, widely available, and often built to be eaten quickly, repeatedly, and in large amounts.
That is why ultra-processed food may be one of the clearest modern tests of when regulation makes sense.
The question is not whether government should tell people what to eat.
The question is whether we should keep pretending the food environment is neutral.
The Problem Is Not Processing. It Is Ultra-Processing.
Not all processed food is bad.
Frozen vegetables are processed. Canned beans are processed. Pasteurized milk is processed. Yogurt, bread, peanut butter, cheese, and fortified cereals can all involve processing. Processing can make food safer, cheaper, longer-lasting, and easier to distribute.
The real concern is ultra-processing: industrially formulated products built from refined starches, sugars, oils, sodium, flavorings, colors, emulsifiers, sweeteners, and other additives. These products are often designed to be intensely palatable, shelf-stable, inexpensive, convenient, and easy to overconsume.
Think less of canned tomatoes and more of soda, packaged cakes, chips, candy, sugary cereals, fast-food meals, frozen pizzas, reconstituted meat products, and ready-to-eat snacks.
The scale is enormous. From August 2021 through August 2023, ultra-processed foods made up 55 percent of total calories consumed by Americans age 1 and older. Among children and teenagers ages 1 to 18, the share was even higher: 61.9 percent. (cdc.gov)
That means ultra-processed food is not a side issue. For many Americans, especially children, it is the food environment itself.
And once something becomes the environment, “personal choice” becomes a less complete explanation.
Are Ultra-Processed Foods Slowly Killing People?
The careful answer is: at high intake levels, probably yes, but not in the simplistic sense that one snack is poison.
Ultra-processed foods appear to increase long-term health risk by making overeating easier, displacing healthier foods, and exposing people to high levels of added sugar, sodium, refined starches, unhealthy fats, and low-fiber calories.
The broad evidence is concerning. A 2024 umbrella review in The BMJ found that greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic disease, common mental disorders, and mortality. The authors also emphasized the need for more research into mechanisms, which matters because much of the evidence is observational and association is not the same as perfect proof of causation. (bmj.com)
But there is also experimental evidence for at least one major mechanism: overeating. In a randomized NIH inpatient study, adults were given ultra-processed and minimally processed diets for two weeks each. The diets were designed to match key nutrients, but people still ate more calories and gained more weight on the ultra-processed diet. (nih.gov)
That finding matters because it weakens the idea that this is only about willpower. If two diets can look similar on a nutrition spreadsheet but one leads people to eat more, then the structure of the food itself is doing some of the work.
So the accurate claim is not:
Ultra-processed foods are poison.
It is:
A food system built around ultra-processed foods predictably pushes people toward overeating and chronic disease, especially when children, misleading marketing, and limited healthier alternatives are involved.
That is when food becomes a regulation question.
The Cigarette Comparison Is Useful, If We Do Not Overstate It
Cigarettes are a tempting comparison because both cigarettes and ultra-processed foods can contribute to slow, population-level harm.
But the comparison has limits.
Cigarettes are simpler. When used as intended, they are harmful, addictive, and nutritionally unnecessary. Cigarette smoking and secondhand-smoke exposure cause more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States, according to the CDC. (cdc.gov)
Food is different. Food is necessary. Processing is not automatically bad. And ultra-processed food is a broad category. Soda, candy, chips, and packaged cakes are not the same as every packaged bread, fortified cereal, plant-based product, or convenient prepared meal.
So no, ultra-processed foods should not be treated exactly like cigarettes.
But the tobacco comparison is still useful in three ways.
First, both involve products that can produce long-term harm while feeling ordinary in the moment.
Second, both involve companies designing and marketing products in ways that shape behavior.
Third, both raise special concerns about children.
This is the strongest part of the comparison. A child cannot meaningfully consent to advertising designed to build lifelong habits. That is why tobacco marketing to young people became unacceptable. The same logic should apply to the worst ultra-processed foods.
The lesson from cigarettes is not “ban everything.”
The lesson is this: when a product category contributes to serious, predictable harm, government should not let companies hide the risk, target children, and market harmful products as harmless lifestyle choices.
A Choice Is Not Fully Free When the Risk Is Hidden
That is why the worst ultra-processed foods should carry clearer front-of-package warnings.
Not every packaged food needs a warning. Not every processed food is dangerous. But products that are clearly high in added sugar, sodium, saturated fat, or very poor nutritional value should say so plainly on the front of the package.
A parent should not need a nutrition degree to understand a cereal box.
A label should be simple:
High in added sugar.
High in sodium.
High in saturated fat.
FDA has already proposed a front-of-package “Nutrition Info” box that would show whether saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars are low, medium, or high. That is a step in the right direction. (fda.gov)
But the United States is still moving cautiously. Other countries have gone further. Chile adopted a policy package that combined front-of-package warning labels, restrictions on marketing to children, and bans on school sales of products high in calories, sugar, sodium, or saturated fat. Studies have found reductions in purchases of targeted products and nutrients of concern after the policy. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
The point is not to scare people away from every treat.
The point is informed choice.
People can still buy the product. But they should not be misled about what it is.
The Strongest Case Is Children
Adults can make imperfect choices. Children are different.
Children are vulnerable to cartoons, toys, games, influencers, bright packaging, school promotions, and digital ads designed to shape desire before they understand what is happening.
When companies market unhealthy ultra-processed foods to children, the issue is no longer just personal responsibility. It is commercial persuasion aimed at people who cannot meaningfully defend themselves.
The World Health Organization recommends policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing, especially for foods high in saturated fats, trans fats, free sugars, or salt. (who.int)
That should be the standard.
The worst ultra-processed foods should not be advertised to children. They should not use cartoon characters, toys, child influencers, school tie-ins, games, or youth-targeted digital campaigns. They should not be promoted in schools or childcare settings. They should not be dressed up as healthy simply because they contain one vitamin, one whole-grain claim, or a picture of fruit on the box.
Adults can choose risky foods for themselves.
Companies should not be allowed to build lifelong customers by targeting children with products linked to preventable harm.
Make Real Food Cheaper
Food policy should follow one clear principle:
Do not tax the foods we want people to eat more of. Discourage the products most strongly linked to preventable harm.
Very healthy whole and minimally processed foods should have no sales tax.
Fruits, vegetables, beans, lentils, oats, brown rice, eggs, plain yogurt, nuts, seeds, tofu, plain frozen vegetables, plain frozen fruit, and similar staples should not be treated like ordinary consumer luxuries. They are the foundation of a healthy diet.
This matters because Americans already eat too few of them. In 2019, only 12.3 percent of U.S. adults met fruit intake recommendations and only 10 percent met vegetable intake recommendations. (cdc.gov)
So why would public policy make those foods more expensive?
A healthier food system should make the best choices easier, cheaper, and more available.
That does not mean forcing people to eat apples.
It means not using the tax code to make apples harder to buy.
The other side is just as important: the worst ultra-processed products should face targeted health taxes.
Not every packaged food. Not every processed food. Not every food with a long ingredient list.
The tax should focus on the clearest offenders: sugar-sweetened beverages, candy-like products, packaged desserts, high-sodium snacks, and ultra-processed foods that exceed clear thresholds for added sugar, sodium, saturated fat, or extremely poor nutritional value.
The evidence is strongest for sugar-sweetened beverage taxes. A 2024 JAMA Health Forum study of five U.S. cities found that sweetened-beverage taxes were associated with price increases and substantial declines in purchases. (jamanetwork.com)
But the revenue matters.
A tax on the worst ultra-processed foods should not become just another way for government to raise money. Every dollar should be used to make healthy food cheaper and easier to access.
That means produce subsidies. Stronger nutrition incentives for lower-income families. Better school meals. Grocery access in underserved areas. Support for small stores that carry healthier staples. Local food infrastructure. Minimally processed food made easier to buy, not harder.
The goal is not punishment.
The goal is a fair swap:
Make real food cheaper. Make the worst ultra-processed products more expensive. Use the money to improve access, not to shame people.
Or, as the title puts it:
Tax apple pie, not apples.
Schools Should Not Normalize the Worst Food
Schools are where the regulation case becomes even stronger.
If public money is feeding children, it should not normalize a diet built around the worst ultra-processed products.
Schools do not have to become perfect temples of nutrition. But they should move steadily toward meals built around minimally processed foods, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, lean proteins, and lower-sugar options.
USDA has updated school nutrition standards to reduce sodium and limit added sugars in school meals over time. That is a good start. (fna.usda.gov)
But the larger principle should be clearer: schools should not become a marketing channel or dependency pipeline for the worst ultra-processed foods.
A child should not leave school having learned that breakfast means a sugary bar, lunch means a salty packaged entrée, and snacks mean branded junk.
Public institutions should model better defaults.
The United States Is Moving, But Too Slowly
The United States has started to address ultra-processed foods, but cautiously.
FDA and USDA issued a joint request for information in 2025 to help develop a uniform federal definition of ultra-processed foods. That matters because the U.S. currently lacks a single authoritative definition for the food supply, and clear regulation requires clear categories. (fda.gov)
FDA has proposed front-of-package labeling. USDA has updated school nutrition standards. Federal agencies are discussing sodium, added sugar, and the broader health risks of ultra-processed foods.
These are good steps.
But they still mostly assume that the main problem is information.
Information matters. Labels matter. Education matters.
But information alone is not enough when the environment is built around the easier, cheaper, louder, more addictive-like option.
A healthier policy would do several things at once.
Define ultra-processed foods clearly.
Remove sales tax from genuinely healthy whole and minimally processed staples.
Put targeted health taxes on the worst ultra-processed products, especially sugary drinks and products with extreme levels of added sugar, sodium, saturated fat, or poor nutritional value.
Use the revenue only to make healthy food cheaper and easier to access.
Require clear front-of-package warnings for the worst products.
Restrict marketing of unhealthy ultra-processed foods to children.
Set higher standards for school meals and school food environments.
Give voluntary sodium and added-sugar reduction targets deadlines, with mandatory backstops if industry fails to make measurable progress.
That last point matters because people cannot easily control what is added before food reaches the shelf. FDA says more than 70 percent of sodium intake in the United States comes from processed, packaged, and prepared foods, not from table salt added at home. (fda.gov)
That is not a ban.
It is a redesign of the food environment.
What This Is Not
Adults should not be criminalized for eating ultra-processed foods.
Stores should not be raided because they sell chips.
People should not be shamed for buying affordable food.
And policymakers should not pretend every ultra-processed food is equally harmful. Some products are worse than others. Some can be reformulated. Some serve practical needs. A good regulatory system should be targeted, not hysterical.
The evidence supports stronger rules around children, labels, marketing, schools, sodium, added sugar, subsidies for healthier foods, and deceptive claims.
It does not support treating every adult snack purchase like a crime.
The Real Choice
Ultra-processed foods reveal the weakness in how we usually talk about freedom.
We act as if the only threat to freedom is government.
Sometimes it is.
Government can overreach. It can regulate too broadly. It can protect big companies from competition. It can bury small businesses in paperwork. It can make rules that sound good but do little.
But freedom can also be weakened by private power.
A person is not making a fully free choice when the healthier option is more expensive, the label is confusing, the child is targeted, the school normalizes the product, the shelf is dominated by junk, and the cheapest calories are the ones most likely to produce long-term harm.
That is not just personal choice.
That is a public environment.
And public environments are exactly where regulation has a job to do.
The central rule still holds:
People should be free to make their own choices unless those choices seriously harm, endanger, deceive, or trap other people.
Applied to ultra-processed foods, that means:
Adults can choose risky foods for themselves. But companies should not be free to deceive consumers, target children, engineer overconsumption, or make unhealthy food the default environment everyone has to live inside.
The problem is not that someone eats dessert.
The problem is when the whole system makes the ultra-processed option cheaper, louder, easier, more constant, and more profitable than real food.
That is not anti-freedom.
That is what freedom looks like when the system has been designed against it.