Shift in dietary focus: Health groups urge nuanced approach to processed foods

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is urging the US federal government to highlight meat and dairy products as leading dietary health risks. This comes as the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission prepares to release its latest report. 

The committee is also calling for a new approach to how processed foods are viewed. These developments coincide with a major policy shift by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., which has drawn criticism from several public health organizations.

The health advocacy group agrees with the first MAHA report, released in May, which concludes that “poor diet” is a potential driver of childhood chronic disease. However, the group advocates for a shift away from meat and dairy products and toward fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. 

“Bacon and eggs, cheeseburgers, pepperoni pizza, and other animal products loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol are driving America’s epidemics of obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes,” says Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee.

The committee also urges a nuanced approach to processed foods, a topic addressed in the first MAHA report. Barnard, who recently co-authored research on processed food, criticizes the term “ultra-processed” as an “invented term with little meaning and even less practical value.”

“Science shows that so-called ultra-processed foods differ greatly: Certain ones are associated with health problems, while others are associated with reduced risk,” he adds.

Polling shows public is unsure

Ultra-processed foods comprise a significant share of the average US diet and consumers are increasingly aware of their health impacts. However, surveys have underscored that consumers struggle to identify ultra-processed foods or to accurately determine which ones are linked to health risks, such as type 2 diabetes.

A recent poll by the Physicians Committee found that 39% of respondents believe all processed foods are unhealthy, while the group argues that distinctions between healthful and unhealthful ultra-processed foods must be made.

In contrast, two recently published analyses of Physicians Committee clinical research studies also show the health benefits of replacing animal products with plant-based foods — no matter how processed — including a reduction in hot flashes and weight loss in postmenopausal women, as well as weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity in people with type 1 diabetes.

The committee also highlights a Harvard University study that showed that animal-based products were associated with a 44% increased risk of diabetes, while ultra-processed cereals were associated with a 22% reduced risk.

These points are being made as the HHS and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepare to release the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans. In December, the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warn against processed foods in the guidelines.

Similarly, the American Heart Association has called for more research on these foods and refined dietary guidelines as not all are of poor nutritional quality. 

Last month, the FDA and USDA called on experts to help establish an authoritative definition of ultra-processed foods. The goal is to establish a single definition of ultra-processed foods to provide consumers better transparency.

Critiques of HHS policy shift

Meanwhile, public health organizations are raising an alarm about an HHS policy shift, which would strip immigrant families of access to essential health and early education services, including Health Centers, Head Start, and HHS-funded behavioral health programs.

The American Public Health Association, the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership, and the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at the George Washington University, along with more than 60 public health scholars, argue that this will have a “staggering” impact.

They argue that the agency’s July 2025 reinterpretation of “federal public benefit” under the 1996 welfare law “reverses 27 years of policy and contradicts clear Congressional intent.”

The experts warn that this could worsen public health by increasing preventable diseases, maternal and infant mortality, and untreated mental health conditions.

The new policy is expected to disrupt access to health screenings and nutrition support for low-income children and may also cause US citizen children in mixed-status families to forgo enrollment due to a “chilling effect.”

Experts predict this change will ripple through entire communities, harming public health beyond just immigrant populations.