Ultra-Processed Foods
Each chapter will function as a complete, standalone article—built to deliver one clear takeaway while still fitting neatly into the larger whole. This structure makes the content easier to navigate, easier to publish in parts, and easier for readers to revisit later without feeling like they’ve missed anything.
Below is the overview, showing how the chapters are organized, what each one focuses on, and how they connect from beginning to end. The goal is to create a coherent progression: starting with the core idea, expanding into context and practical application, and finishing with insights that tie everything together into a satisfying, useful conclusion.
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Why “ultra-processed food” is suddenly at the center of nutrition policy (again)
1.2. What changed in the 2025–2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines: the “eat real food” reset
1.3. Why this matters in Norway too: comparable shopping patterns and rising chronic disease burden (set up the Norway/US parallel; keep claims sourced)
1.4. How to read this article (Harvard-style): claims → evidence → counterarguments → practical implications
Chapter 2. What counts as ultra-processed food (and why definitions cause arguments)
2.1. Processing vs. “ultra-processing”: where the line gets blurry in real life
2.2. NOVA classification explained (Groups 1–4) and common examples readers recognize
2.3. Why experts disagree: category debates, reformulation, and “health halos”
2.4. A practical “spot-it-in-the-store” checklist (ingredients, additives, packaging cues—without fearmongering)
Chapter 3. The new U.S. dietary guidance: what it actually says (and doesn’t say)
3.1. The headline message: “eat real food” and limit highly processed packaged products
3.2. Added sugar, sodium, and artificial ingredients: what’s emphasized (summarize with precise language)
3.3. Protein targets and policy impact (school meals, public programs, communications)
3.4. What’s missing or criticized: specificity, context, and implementation details (include credible critiques, not just vibes)
3.5. How the U.S. “Scientific Foundation” report frames evidence and standards
Chapter 4. The evidence on ultra-processed foods and health: what we know, what we don’t
4.1. The core signal in research: consistent associations across many studies
4.2. What associations can’t prove (and what stronger study designs can add)
4.3. Likely mechanisms (multiple pathways, not one magic villain):
- 4.3.1. Energy density, palatability engineering, and passive overconsumption
- 4.3.2. Low fiber/protein quality tradeoffs and satiety disruption
- 4.3.3. Additives, emulsifiers, sweeteners: where evidence is stronger vs preliminary
- 4.3.4. Packaging exposure and modern food environments (note uncertainty; avoid absolutism)
4.4. How to present “risk” responsibly: relative vs absolute, confounding, and dose-response
Chapter 5. Norway’s official dietary advice: where it aligns and where it diverges
5.1. What Norway’s national dietary advice prioritizes (and how it’s structured)
5.2. Why “ultra-processed” is not always explicit in Norwegian guidance (frame as policy/communication choice, not conspiracy)
5.3. Areas of overlap with the U.S. reset (whole foods, less sugar/salt, more plants)
5.4. Reader translation: what a Norwegian grocery basket looks like under each approach
Chapter 6. The controversy cluster: meat, dairy fat, and oils (why nutrition debates never die)
6.1. Red meat: health outcomes, processing distinction (unprocessed vs processed), and disagreement zones
6.2. Full-fat dairy: the new U.S. emphasis vs long-standing low-fat recommendations
6.3. Saturated fat thresholds and the “how can both be true?” problem (show the internal logic and the critique)
6.4. Plant oils and omega-3/omega-6: what’s established vs what’s debated
6.5. How to write this section Harvard-style:
- 6.5.1. Present the mainstream position accurately
- 6.5.2. Present the best counterargument accurately
- 6.5.3. Explain what evidence would actually resolve the disagreement
Chapter 7. “We were misled for decades”: industry influence, trust, and policy messaging
7.1. Why dietary guidelines are political objects (even when science is real)
7.2. Conflicts of interest and transparency: how to discuss without sensationalism
7.3. Public trust: why simple messages win—and where simplification can backfire
7.4. What “reset” rhetoric accomplishes (and what it risks)
Chapter 8. Practical guidance readers can actually use (without turning food into a moral test)
8.1. A “real food” decision ladder (fast heuristics for busy people)
8.2. Shopping tactics in Norway: labels, bread traps, dairy choices, and lunchbox reality
8.3. Kitchen strategies: cook once, eat twice (batching, freezing, minimalist prep)
8.4. Eating out: how to reduce ultra-processed exposure without becoming the annoying prophet
8.5. Budget-friendly swaps that don’t punish taste
8.6. Special cases:
- 8.6.1. Kids and picky eating
- 8.6.2. Athletes/high-protein goals
- 8.6.3. Diabetes/prediabetes risk (tone: supportive; recommend clinician guidance where needed)
Chapter 9. What this could mean next: definitions, labeling, and the future of “processed”
9.1. Will governments formalize an “ultra-processed” definition? What’s underway in the U.S.
9.2. Potential policy tools: procurement rules, school meals, marketing limits, labeling systems
9.3. What would be smart for Norway to watch (without importing culture-war noise)
9.4. Research agenda: what evidence gaps matter most (causal pathways, interventions, reformulation outcomes)
Chapter 10. FAQs (semantic cluster set using “vector similarity” intent grouping)
10.1. Definition & identification FAQs (closest-intent neighbors):
- “What is ultra-processed food, exactly?”
- “Is packaged bread ultra-processed?”
- “Are flavored yogurts always ultra-processed?”
- “Do ingredients like emulsifiers automatically make food unhealthy?”
10.2. Health outcomes FAQs (shared intent: risk + mechanisms):
- “Does ultra-processed food cause obesity or is it just correlation?”
- “What does ultra-processed food do to blood sugar and insulin?”
- “Is ultra-processed food linked to heart disease and cancer?”
10.3. Guidelines comparison FAQs (shared intent: Norway vs U.S.):
- “How do the 2025–2030 U.S. guidelines differ from Norway’s advice?”
- “Why don’t Norwegian guidelines talk more about ultra-processed food?”
10.4. Food-choice controversy FAQs (shared intent: fats/meat/dairy):
- “Is full-fat dairy healthy now?”
- “Should I avoid seed oils?”
- “Is red meat ‘back’ in the guidelines?”
10.5. Actionable lifestyle FAQs (shared intent: practicality):
- “What are the easiest first swaps to reduce ultra-processed foods?”
- “How do I eat ‘real food’ on a tight budget?”
- “What can I order when eating out?”
Chapter 11. Conclusion
11.1. The balanced takeaway: strong signal, messy definitions, clear direction
11.2. A pragmatic north star: prioritize minimally processed staples, reduce engineered snack calories
11.3. What readers should do this week (3–5 concrete actions) vs what to ignore (noise traps)
Chapter 1. Introduction
Ultra-processed food is having a cultural moment. A technical term breaks out of academia. It suddenly starts behaving like a political slogan. You can feel it in the language: real food, fake food, food-like products, chemical additives, industrial diets. These phrases are not neutral. They are like a referendum. They make us consider how we eat, how we work, and how we raise children. They also prompt us to think about how much power we’re willing to cede to the modern food system.
But “ultra-processed” is also a methodological claim. It is a way of classifying foods. This classification tries to capture something nutrition labels often miss. It considers not just what a food contains, but what it is. This includes how it’s engineered, how it’s marketed, and how it fits into a life. The argument is that a diet dominated by industrial formulations may shape appetite, metabolism, and health. These are ready-to-eat/heat products built from refined ingredients, additives, and processes “mostly of exclusive industrial use.” This shaping doesn’t reduce neatly to calories or macronutrients. That’s one reason the term has become a lightning rod. The other reason is simpler. In many high-income countries, ultra-processed foods now make up a very large share of what people eat. Any serious effort to shift public health has to pass through this gate. The United States has now made that gate explicit in national guidance. It frames the next five years around a blunt message: “eat real food.” Also, they advise to “dramatically reduce highly processed foods.”
This chapter sets the stage for an 11-part series. It explains why ultra-processed food is back at the center of nutrition policy; what changed in the newly released U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2025–2030). It also discusses why Norway should care even if our politics, welfare model, and food culture differ. Additionally, it guides how to read the rest of the series in a way that separates evidence from interpretation. It does this without pretending that food is purely scientific.
1.1. Why “ultra-processed food” is suddenly at the center of nutrition policy (again)
The “again” matters. The concept of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has been in the policy atmosphere for years. This is largely because of the NOVA classification system. NOVA groups foods by the nature, extent, and purpose of processing. In simplified form, NOVA starts with minimally processed foods (Group 1). It continues through processed culinary ingredients (Group 2) and processed foods (Group 3). It ends with ultra-processed foods (Group 4). UPFs are often industrial formulations made from food-derived substances and additives. They often contain little or no intact whole foods. Consider sugar-sweetened beverages and packaged snacks. Many ready meals, sweets, and a long tail of “convenience” products are also in this category. These items are cheap, shelf-stable, and aggressively marketed.
So why the new urgency?
A. The exposure is massive—and now quantified in mainstream surveillance
A policy debate becomes hard to ignore. This happens when the exposure looks less like a niche habit. It then appears more like the default setting of daily life. Recent U.S. surveillance underscores that point: a CDC data brief covering August 2021 to August 2023 reported that, on average, 55% of total calories consumed by people aged 1 year and older came from ultra-processed foods; among youth aged 1–18 years, the share was even higher (61.9%), while adults consumed about 53%.
Numbers like this change the emotional geometry of the problem. If half of calories are coming from UPFs, then “just make better choices” is an inadequate story. The environment is doing a great deal of the choosing.
Norway’s numbers are not identical, but they rhyme. A Norwegian dietary study using Norkost 4 pilot data classified foods by NOVA. The study found that UPFs contributed about 48% of total energy intake on average. A sales-based study in Norway (using supermarket data) has also suggested that ultra-processed products account for a majority of food sales—an important reminder that what households buy is often a strong proxy for what households eat.
Different methods (diet recalls vs. retail sales) capture different slices of reality, but the direction is consistent: ultra-processing is not a marginal phenomenon in Norway; it is woven into the ordinary grocery basket.
B. The evidence base has widened—and the associations look persistent
A growing body of observational research links higher UPF intake to weight gain, obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, depression, and all-cause mortality. The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR 2023) summary page on UPFs reflects this broad pattern: “total intake is associated with increased risk of obesity, CVD, T2D, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality,” while also noting the evidence base is dominated by observational studies and that the group is heterogeneous.
For Nordic contexts specifically, a 2024 scoping review commissioned for the Nordic region concluded that the current evidence supports associations between higher UPF consumption and adverse outcomes such as weight gain and increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, depression, and mortality (Juul, 2024).
And yet, the way this evidence gets used in policy is not straightforward. This is partly because the term “ultra-processed” is both descriptive and accusatory. It can sound like a moral diagnosis rather than a category. The science can be strong enough to justify concern, while still leaving legitimate questions about causality and mechanisms.
C. The argument is shifting from nutrients to systems
Classic nutrition policy often focused on nutrient targets: less saturated fat, less added sugar, less sodium, more fiber. UPF discourse reframes that approach by asking: what kind of foods are delivering those nutrients (or displacing them), and what does that do to eating behavior over time?
This matters because UPFs are not only a nutrition profile; they are a business model. They tend to be:
- Highly profitable (cheap inputs, high margin branding)
- Hyper-convenient (minimal preparation time)
- Engineered for repeat purchase (texture, flavor systems, packaging cues)
- Marketed at scale, often with sophisticated targeting
- Designed for shelf stability, enabling global distribution and constant availability
When a category of food becomes structurally favored—economically, logistically, culturally—it begins to look like infrastructure. And once something looks like infrastructure, governments notice it, because the health system ends up paying the downstream costs.
D. The definitional fight has become politically consequential
If you define UPFs one way, you might end up discouraging wholegrain breads, yogurt, or fortified foods that can contribute positively to diets. The NNR 2023 summary makes this point explicitly: some UPFs are considered healthy from a nutritional point of view, and fortification can support nutrient adequacy in some highly refined products.
At the same time, if you define UPFs too loosely—or avoid the term entirely—you may fail to name a major driver of poor dietary patterns.
That tension has now surfaced in the U.S. Dietary Guidelines debate: reporting around the 2025–2030 Guidelines notes controversy over language choices such as using “highly processed” rather than “ultra-processed,” with critics arguing terminology can shape clarity, enforcement, and public understanding.
In other words: the vocabulary is not cosmetic. It’s a lever.
E. Institutions are trying to be honest about uncertainty and act anyway
A useful example comes from the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN). In a 2025 rapid evidence update, SACN concluded that associations between higher consumption of (ultra) processed foods and adverse health outcomes are concerning, but also emphasized limitations in the evidence and uncertainty about whether harms are due to processing per se or because many of these foods are high in energy, saturated fat, salt, and/or free sugars.
This “concern + uncertainty” stance is increasingly common: policymakers are confronted with a pattern too large to ignore and too messy to package into a single clean causal story. The U.S. shift in 2025–2030 reflects one way governments resolve that tension: simplify the public message (“eat real food”), while leaving technical disputes to scientific appendices and future research.
1.2. What changed in the 2025–2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines: the “eat real food” reset
On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) 2025–2030. Whatever one thinks of the politics surrounding the release, the rhetorical shift is unmistakable in the document itself: “These Guidelines mark the most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in our nation’s history. The message is simple: eat real food.”
A “reset” is not merely a new food pyramid graphic. It is a reframing of what the Guidelines are for and how they speak. The new DGA leans into cultural language—real, basic, common sense—and positions nutrition not only as chronic disease prevention, but as national capacity, family affordability, and even identity.
Let’s break down what actually changed in substance and emphasis—especially as it relates to ultra-processed food.
A. A direct call to reduce “highly processed foods”
The 2025–2030 Guidelines explicitly recommend a “dramatic reduction in highly processed foods,” particularly those “laden with refined carbohydrates, added sugars, excess sodium, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives.”
This is not the first time U.S. guidance has warned about added sugars or sodium, but it is a notable consolidation of those warnings into a single category-level admonition: less of the industrial pattern, more whole foods.
Importantly, the public debate has noted that the Guidelines reportedly avoid the term “ultra-processed foods,” opting instead for “highly processed,” which has generated both praise (for avoiding a contested classification) and criticism (for blurring a widely used research term).
B. “Eat real food” as a top-level organizing principle
Previous DGAs have often been organized around dietary patterns, nutrient adequacy, and limiting components. The 2025–2030 document foregrounds food identity—with “real food” as the anchor phrase and whole, nutrient-dense foods presented as the default: protein foods, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains.
This is partly a messaging strategy: many consumers understand “real food” more intuitively than “limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories.” But it also signals a philosophical shift: an attempt to move nutrition guidance away from nutrient bookkeeping and toward food environment correction.
C. A sharper narrative about chronic disease as policy failure
The document frames the U.S. as being “amid a health emergency,” and attributes chronic disease not only to personal behavior but to “poor policy choices,” “inadequate nutrition research,” and lack of coordination across sectors.
That framing matters because the DGA are not only advice; they guide federal food programs—school meals, institutional procurement, nutrition education. When the Guidelines describe the crisis as systemic, they implicitly justify systemic interventions.
D. The backdrop: the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s mixed certainty on UPFs
Before any DGA is released, a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) prepares a scientific report. The DGAC Scientific Report for 2025 was submitted and made public in late 2024, and public comment ran into early 2025.
On ultra-processed foods specifically, the evidence review process has shown why policy gets tricky: a DGAC systematic review on dietary patterns with UPFs and growth/body composition noted that the 2025 Committee was not able to draw a conclusion due to insufficient evidence (as assessed in that review).
So the “eat real food” messaging of the final 2025–2030 Guidelines lands in a complicated space: growing observational concern about UPFs, ongoing definitional debates, and at least some systematic-review pathways that still judge the evidence base as not yet conclusive for certain questions. That doesn’t mean the Guidelines are “unscientific.” It means they are doing what policy often does: moving with the weight of the total pattern rather than waiting for perfect mechanistic certainty.
E. The controversy is real—and part of what makes the moment consequential
The 2025–2030 DGA release has been covered as politically and culturally contentious, with reporting highlighting disputes about protein emphasis, fat guidance, and broader ideological framing.
From a Norway-facing perspective, the key point is not to import U.S. culture wars wholesale. The key point is that the world’s most influential national dietary guideline system has (1) centered a plain-language “real food” directive, and (2) made processedness, not just nutrients, a public-facing target. That shift will echo—through global food companies, marketing strategies, and the way international public health agencies talk to people.
1.3. Why this matters in Norway too: comparable shopping patterns and rising chronic disease burden
Norway is not the United States. Our income distribution is narrower; our social safety net is broader; our food culture includes strong traditions of home meals, fish, and bread; our regulatory environment around marketing and consumer protection is different in important ways.
And yet: when you walk through a Norwegian supermarket, you can see the same global logic at work—shelf-stable convenience, snackification, ready-to-eat lunches, sweetened drinks, branded “health” products that promise virtue while selling ultra-processed formats.
The Norway–U.S. parallel is not that we are identical. It is that we are converging on similar food system architectures, and those architectures tend to produce similar health patterns over time.
A. Ultra-processed food is already a major energy source in Norwegian diets
Using Norkost 4 pilot study data and NOVA classification, Norwegian researchers found that ultra-processed foods contributed about 48% of total energy intake on average (with bread contributing the most within the UPF category in that dataset).
That one detail about bread is worth holding onto. It anticipates a central theme of this series: UPFs are not a neat pile of “junk.” Some foods that many Norwegians think of as staples can fall into the ultra-processed category depending on formulation and processing rules. That doesn’t mean “bread is bad.” It means UPF policy cannot be built on caricature.
A sales-based Norwegian study has also concluded that ultra-processed products accounted for the majority of food sales in Norway, again pointing to high exposure at the population level.
B. Chronic disease burden is substantial even in a high-performing health system
Norway has done many things right: cardiovascular mortality has declined over time, and public health infrastructure is strong. But chronic disease remains the dominant terrain.
An OECD “Norway: Country Health Profile 2025” notes that in 2023, cancer and cardiovascular diseases were the leading causes of death in Norway, together accounting for 49% of all deaths, even as trends have improved in recent years.
Meanwhile, Nordic surveillance indicates that overweight and obesity remain common across the region. A NORMO 2025 update reports that in 2024, obesity prevalence in Norway was 16.2% (with 56% of adults in the Nordic Region classified as having overweight or obesity overall).
Diabetes trends are also part of the picture. International estimates (such as the IDF Atlas) suggest rising numbers of adults living with diabetes in Norway over time, reflecting demographic change and longer survival as well as incidence patterns. In national clinical quality work, Norway maintains extensive diabetes registry reporting, indicating both the scale of the condition and the health system’s investment in monitoring it.
The point is not that UPFs “cause” all of this. The point is that Norway—like other wealthy countries—has a disease profile where diet quality, weight trajectories, metabolic health, and inequalities matter enormously. When UPFs make up roughly half of energy intake, they become an unavoidable part of any honest discussion about prevention.
C. Norway shares key structural drivers with the U.S.: convenience pressure and retail dominance
Here is the less glamorous but more decisive parallel: the average family’s week is tight. Two-income households, long commutes for some, children’s activities, stress, and the cognitive load of modern life all reward foods that are:
- fast, predictable, and portable
- shelf-stable and available everywhere
- engineered to taste good even when eaten quickly
- marketed as “smart choices” for busy people
This is not a morality tale. It is time economics. UPFs are often a rational response to the way contemporary life is organized.
Policy enters because those pressures are not equally distributed. UPF intake is frequently patterned by socio-economic gradients, and the NNR 2023 UPF summary explicitly notes links to social inequalities and deprived groups.
So when we say this matters in Norway, what we mean is: the same forces that made UPFs dominant in the U.S. are present here too—perhaps with different intensities, but with the same direction.
D. Nordic guidance is cautious about the UPF category—yet the issue is not going away
A subtle but crucial point: the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023 did not issue a specific quantitative recommendation on ultra-processed foods as a category. The committee’s summary explains why: despite observed associations with health outcomes, it decided not to formulate specific UPF recommendations, arguing that the categorization “does not add to the already existing food classifications and recommendations in NNR2023,” and noting heterogeneity and definitional concerns.
This restraint is scientifically respectable. But it does not end the conversation. If anything, it sets up a Nordic tension:
- We see high UPF exposure and concerning associations, and
- We are not fully convinced that NOVA-based category advice adds value beyond existing guidance on sugar/salt/fat and dietary patterns.
The U.S. has chosen one route (simple public directive: “eat real food,” reduce “highly processed”), while Nordic institutions have been more cautious about category-level UPF advice. Norway sits between these worlds: culturally close enough to Nordic caution, economically and commercially exposed enough to global food industry dynamics that U.S.-style messaging may still influence public expectations.
This series will not pretend there is one “correct” approach. Instead, we’ll map the trade-offs: clarity vs. precision, simplicity vs. nuance, category-level warnings vs. nutrient-level regulation.
1.4. How to read this article (Harvard-style): claims → evidence → counterarguments → practical implications
Food discourse is full of confident sentences that float free of sourcing. This series is built to do the opposite. Each chapter will use a repeatable structure so you can tell when we are on firm ground and when we are interpreting.
Step 1: The claim
A claim is a statement that could be true or false, such as:
- “UPFs make up about half of energy intake in Norway.”
- “Higher UPF intake is associated with increased risk of obesity and cardiovascular disease.”
- “Policy that targets UPFs risks misclassifying nutritious foods.”
Claims are not automatically “facts.” They are propositions that require support.
Step 2: The evidence
Evidence will be cited in Harvard style (author/date in-text, full references at the end), prioritizing:
- official surveillance and reports (e.g., CDC data briefs, OECD health profiles)
- peer-reviewed studies and systematic/scoping reviews
- authoritative guideline bodies (e.g., NNR, DGAC materials)
For example, the U.S. “55% of calories” figure comes from a CDC/NCHS data brief. The Norway “48% of energy” estimate comes from a peer-reviewed analysis of Norkost 4 pilot data using NOVA classification.
Step 3: The counterarguments (and uncertainties)
Nutrition is not physics. Many UPF findings are observational, and causality questions matter. We will treat three kinds of counterarguments seriously:
- Definition problems (what exactly counts as UPF?)
- Confounding and causality (do UPFs cause harm, or do they track with broader lifestyle patterns?)
- Heterogeneity (some UPFs may be nutritionally helpful or culturally important)
You’ll see institutions modeling this caution. The NNR 2023 summary notes that some UPFs may be nutritionally beneficial and that the committee did not issue a specific UPF recommendation partly because the category may not add value over existing classifications. The UK SACN similarly emphasizes uncertainty about whether harms are due to processing itself or the nutrient profiles of many processed foods.
Step 4: Practical implications
Every chapter will end its arguments by returning to the real world:
- What does this mean for household shopping, cooking, and budgeting?
- What does it mean for schools, public procurement, labeling, or marketing rules?
- What does it mean for Norway specifically (not as a copy of the U.S., but as a country with its own policy toolbox)?
The goal is not to produce purity rules (“never eat X”). The goal is to help you see the food landscape clearly enough to act—personally and politically—without being manipulated by either marketing or panic.
Where we go from here
This chapter has done four things:
- It showed why ultra-processed foods are back at the center of nutrition policy: exposure is large, evidence is concerning, and the debate has shifted from nutrients to systems.
- It described the new U.S. Dietary Guidelines (2025–2030) and their “eat real food” framing, including explicit calls to reduce “highly processed foods,” and the controversy over terminology.
- It established why Norway should care: UPFs are already around half of energy intake in available Norwegian data, and chronic disease and obesity remain major public health realities.
- It gave you a reading method: claim → evidence → counterargument → practical implications, so the series remains rigorous even when the topic is emotionally charged.
In Chapter 2, we’ll define “ultra-processed” more precisely, walk through NOVA in detail, and explain why the classification is simultaneously useful, controversial, and—depending on your policy goals—either a breakthrough or a distraction.
References:
- CDC/NCHS (2025) Ultra-processed food consumption in youth and adults, August 2021–August 2023 (Data Brief No. 536). National Center for Health Statistics.
- DietaryGuidelines.gov (2024) Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- HHS & USDA (2026) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030.
- Juul, F. (2024) ‘Ultra-processed foods – a scoping review for Nordic nutrition recommendations’, Food & Nutrition Research.
- Nordic Council of Ministers (2023) Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) (summary page).
- NORMO (2025) Overweight and obesity – Status 2024 (Nordic Region).
- OECD (2025) Norway: Country Health Profile 2025 (Country Health Profile series).
- PBS NewsHour (2026) ‘Here’s what’s in new dietary guidelines from the Trump administration’.
- SACN (2025) Processed foods and health: Rapid evidence update (summary). UK Government.
- Slaathaug, C. et al. (2024) ‘Nutritional quality and climate impact of Norwegian adults’ diet classified according to the NOVA system’, Nutrition Journal (full text via PubMed Central).
- Solberg, S.L. et al. (2015) ‘Ultra-processed food purchases in Norway’, Public Health Nutrition (open access via PubMed Central).
- University of Oslo / Norwegian Directorate of Health et al. (2024) Norkost 4 (report).
- FoodNavigator-USA (2026) ‘The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans avoid the term “ultra-processed foods,” prompting both praise and criticism’.
Share this:
Discover more from Jarlhalla Group
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.