The two missing pillars of ultra-processed food and health policy: food assistance and the first 1,000 days
- 1School of Food & Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Guangzhou College of Technology and Business , ,
- 2College of Food Science, South China Agricultural University , , ,
- 3School of Food Science and Engineering, Foshan University , ,
Abstract
Global policies on ultra-processed foods (UPF) have largely focused on four major approaches: taxes and other fiscal measures, restrictions on food marketing, front-of-pack warning labels, and product reformulation. While these strategies are important, they mainly address foods sold through commercial markets and overlook two powerful public-sector influences on what people eat: food assistance programs and nutrition policies during the first 1,000 days of life. These systems shape the diets of more than one billion people worldwide, yet they remain largely absent from current UPF policy discussions. This gap matters because those most affected by food environments often have the fewest choices. Infants, young children, and families relying on public food programs do not always determine what foods are available to them; instead, their diets are shaped by program design, procurement decisions, and broader policy priorities. If UPF policies continue to focus only on consumer choice within retail markets, they risk leaving behind populations who are most dependent on institutional food systems. A more complete approach requires expanding UPF governance beyond commercial food environments, including extending the protective principles of the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes to the broader complementary feeding period up to 36 months and developing age-specific UPF definitions and thresholds tailored to infants and young children. This perspective argues that a comprehensive, life-course approach to food-system regulation and the reduction of preventable nutrition-related inequalities requires the explicit integration of these overlooked yet critical domains into existing UPF policy frameworks.
Related
- Three pillars for digital health assessment in LMICs: a mini review of technology benchmarking, digital health literacy, and social media listening
- USDA-administered food assistance programs and health outcomes among older adults in the United States: a systematic review
- Public financing, external assistance and household health payments: a causal machine learning analysis of 173 countries, 2000–2023
- Surveillance, Violence, and Assistance: Distinct Typologies of Police Contact and Prospective Health Outcomes Among People Who Use Drugs
- Effect of ultra-processed food consumption on male reproductive and metabolic health
BibTeX
@article{liu2026missing,
title = {{The two missing pillars of ultra-processed food and health policy: food assistance and the first 1,000 days}},
author = {Ting Liu and Zimeng Cheng and Bin Xue and Ankita Kumari and Abdul Rahaman},
journal = {Frontiers in nutrition},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fnut.2026.1912782},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13729247},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The two missing pillars of ultra-processed food and health policy: food assistance and the first 1,000 days
AU - Ting Liu
AU - Zimeng Cheng
AU - Bin Xue
AU - Ankita Kumari
AU - Abdul Rahaman
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/20
JO - Frontiers in nutrition
DO - 10.3389/fnut.2026.1912782
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13729247
AB - Global policies on ultra-processed foods (UPF) have largely focused on four major approaches: taxes and other fiscal measures, restrictions on food marketing, front-of-pack warning labels, and product reformulation. While these strategies are important, they mainly address foods sold through commercial markets and overlook two powerful public-sector influences on what people eat: food assistance programs and nutrition policies during the first 1,000 days of life. These systems shape the diets of more than one billion people worldwide, yet they remain largely absent from current UPF policy discussions. This gap matters because those most affected by food environments often have the fewest choices. Infants, young children, and families relying on public food programs do not always determine what foods are available to them; instead, their diets are shaped by program design, procurement decisions, and broader policy priorities. If UPF policies continue to focus only on consumer choice within retail markets, they risk leaving behind populations who are most dependent on institutional food systems. A more complete approach requires expanding UPF governance beyond commercial food environments, including extending the protective principles of the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes to the broader complementary feeding period up to 36 months and developing age-specific UPF definitions and thresholds tailored to infants and young children. This perspective argues that a comprehensive, life-course approach to food-system regulation and the reduction of preventable nutrition-related inequalities requires the explicit integration of these overlooked yet critical domains into existing UPF policy frameworks.
SN - 2296-861X
ER -