ArticlePublic health nutrition2026
Perceptions of ultra-processed foods, food processing and food healthfulness among a cross-sectional national sample of US adults: do perceptions align with the evidence?
Article in Public health nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Before we tell people to avoid ultra-processed foods, can they identify them? The case for cognitive validity criteria in food classification.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is growing public health interest in ultra-processed foods (UPF), but limited research exploring consumers' perceptions of these foods in the United States. We aimed to characterise consumers' beliefs about UPF, the association between perceived food processing and perceived food healthfulness and alignment between consumers' perceptions and objective measures of food processing and healthfulness.
designIn a cross-sectional survey, participants answered questions regarding their beliefs about UPF. They rated the healthfulness and processing levels of a random selection of ten out of forty possible foods. We used descriptive statistics to examine participant beliefs about UPF. We used linear regression models to test associations between perceived processing and perceived healthfulness and between objective and perceived measures of food healthfulness and processing.
settingWe fielded an online survey in the USA in November 2023.
participantsThis study included US adults aged ≥ 18 years (
resultsFifty-four percent of participants correctly identified UPF as 'Food products submitted to a series of industrial processing' and 52 % correctly identified UPF as, 'Food products that contain artificial ingredients'. However, one-third of participants believed UPF were genetically modified products. While foods with higher perceived processing tended to have lower perceived healthfulness and individuals perceived UPF as more processed and less healthful than minimally processed foods, healthfulness perceptions better aligned with Food Compass 2.0, a measure that integrates food processing and nutrient-profile.
conclusionsEducational and policy efforts (e.g. food labeling) are needed to help consumers distinguish UPF and holistically assess the healthfulness of foods and beverages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.