A major new science advisory from the American Heart Association clarifies that while most ultra‑processed foods (UPFs) raise cardiometabolic risks, a limited group of packaged items — such as whole‑grain cereals, plain yogurt, canned beans and frozen vegetables — can fit into a healthy diet when chosen carefully and used to replace more harmful options. The advisory stresses nuance: the degree of industrial processing alone does not fully determine health risk, and public guidance should target UPFs high in saturated fat, added sugar and sodium while preserving affordable, nutritious packaged options for busy families (American Heart Association newsroom).
Ultraprocessed foods have been linked in observational studies to higher rates of heart attack, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity and all‑cause mortality, and intake has risen rapidly in many countries over the past three decades. The American Heart Association’s advisory synthesises this evidence, highlights major gaps in our understanding of whether specific industrial additives or processing steps cause harm beyond poor nutrient composition, and proposes research and policy steps to reduce the burden of UPF‑driven disease without sacrificing access to affordable, convenient food options (American Heart Association newsroom).
Why this matters in Thailand: UPF sales and consumption are growing across Southeast Asia, and Thailand is no exception. Recent national analyses show rising retail sales and consumer expenditure on UPFs in Thailand, with ready meals, flavoured drinks and packaged snacks among the fastest‑growing categories. More than half of the UPF products sold in Thailand exceed at least one nutrient limit for fat, saturated fat, sugar or sodium, and nearly all exceed the sodium threshold in regional nutrient‑profile criteria — a worrying signal given Thailand’s existing burden of cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand).
The key findings and practical takeaways from the scientific advisory are straightforward. First, most UPFs are nutritionally poor and associated with higher cardiometabolic risk; meta‑analyses show a dose‑response relationship linking greater UPF intake to higher risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Second, a small subset of UPFs — including some minimally sweetened dairy, whole‑grain packaged cereals, nut butters and frozen or canned fruits and vegetables without added salt or sugar — tend to have better nutrient profiles and can support healthy eating patterns when they replace red‑flag items like sugar‑sweetened beverages, processed meats and sugary snacks (American Heart Association newsroom; Yahoo Lifestyle summary).
Public‑health experts who helped draft the advisory warned that focusing only on the label “ultra‑processed” risks oversimplifying the problem. “We know that eating foods with too much saturated fat, added sugars and salt is unhealthy. What we don’t know is if certain ingredients or processing techniques make a food unhealthy above and beyond their poor nutritional composition,” said the volunteer chair of the AHA writing group in the advisory (American Heart Association newsroom). Other nutrition specialists emphasise caution about promoting a narrow list of “healthy” UPFs, because even reformulated processed items can still promote overeating or displace minimally processed home‑prepared foods in some settings (CNN coverage of AHA advisory).
For consumers trying to lower risk without losing convenience, the advisory and public guidance offer clear, practical shopping principles. Look for products with whole grains, legumes, nuts, plain dairy or plant‑based alternatives, minimal added sugar and low sodium. Favor frozen fruits and vegetables, low‑sodium canned beans and canned fish in water, unsweetened dried fruit, lightly salted nuts and high‑fiber cereals with little added sugar. Avoid processed meats, sugary drinks, packaged sweets, refined breads and many ready meals that combine several red‑flag ingredients (Yahoo Lifestyle summary; American Heart Association newsroom).
What the evidence does and does not tell us: observational data consistently link higher UPF intake to worse health, but causality and the specific mechanisms remain uncertain. Researchers have proposed several possible explanations: the poor nutrient profiles of many UPFs (high in saturated fat, added sugar and sodium); additives and cosmetic ingredients that may alter appetite regulation; the degraded food matrix that enables rapid energy intake; and contaminants created during processing. The advisory calls for more randomized trials, better food composition databases that include additives and processing details, and clearer labelling rules to help consumers make informed choices (American Heart Association newsroom).
Thailand‑specific implications and comparisons help put the advisory in context. A national analysis of UPF supply and sales in Thailand found a steady increase in UPF volumes and values over the last decade, driven particularly by ready meals and flavored/functional drinks, and linked this trend to the expansion of modern retail formats and foreign investment into food manufacturing (Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand). The same study used regional nutrient‑profile criteria to show that the vast majority of UPFs on Thai shelves exceed recommended sodium limits, and many products are excessive in sugar and saturated fat as well. These supply‑side trends mirror global patterns described in the AHA advisory, where food availability and marketing — especially toward children and low‑income communities — help explain high UPF consumption (American Heart Association newsroom; Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand).
Thailand has already used policy tools that show how regulation can influence consumption patterns. The government’s sugar‑content‑based excise tax on sugar‑sweetened beverages, implemented in stages beginning in 2017, is cited as a factor that contributed to a relative decline in some categories of ready‑to‑drink beverages, even as other UPF subcategories continued to grow (Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand). The AHA advisory likewise highlights policy levers — front‑of‑package labelling, taxes on HFSS (high fat, sugar, salt) products, restrictions on marketing to children and improved additive regulation — as priorities for reducing the health harms linked to UPFs (American Heart Association newsroom).
Voices from the field underscore both urgency and nuance. A registered dietitian and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics told reporters that nearly 60% of U.S. calories come from UPFs and that adolescents fare worst; she recommended practical swaps like plain yogurt plus fresh fruit and sparkling water with fruit instead of soda to preserve convenience without sacrificing health (Yahoo Lifestyle summary). Meanwhile, nutrition scientists who helped draft the AHA advisory warned against giving the food industry a “write‑off” by overemphasizing a short list of “healthy UPFs,” arguing that policy should still target the dominant group of nutritionally harmful products (CNN coverage of AHA advisory).
Thailand’s cultural and culinary strengths offer practical pathways for action. Traditional Thai cuisine emphasizes fresh herbs, vegetables, rice and fish, and community meal preparation remains common outside major urban centres. Public health strategies that revive and adapt these culinary traditions — while making them compatible with modern life — could reduce reliance on UPFs. Practical measures include strengthening school meal programmes with minimally processed ingredients, supporting street vendors and small grocers to provide fresh, affordable options, and using community cooking classes to teach time‑saving techniques like batch cooking and frozen ingredient use. These approaches align with Buddhist cultural values of moderation and collective well‑being and may be more acceptable to Thai families than top‑down bans alone (Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand).
Looking ahead, the most important developments to watch are whether researchers can disentangle the effects of specific additives and processing steps from the broader harms of poor nutrient composition, and whether policymakers adopt multi‑pronged strategies to reduce UPF consumption while protecting food security and affordability. The American Heart Association recommends more trials and monitoring, clearer labelling of additives and processing methods, and evidence‑based policy measures such as HFSS taxes and front‑of‑package warnings to shift consumption toward vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts and lean proteins (American Heart Association newsroom). For Thailand, that implies enforcing and possibly expanding existing sugar tax measures, piloting front‑of‑package labelling compatible with regional models, and incentivising retailers to stock healthier frozen and canned basics while limiting in‑store marketing of HFSS products (Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand).
What should Thai consumers and health services do now? First, households can make immediate, low‑cost swaps: choose plain yogurts and add fresh fruit, buy frozen vegetables and canned beans with low sodium, favor whole‑grain breads and high‑fiber cereals with minimal sugar, and swap soda for sparkling water with a lime wedge. These changes preserve convenience for busy workers and students while reducing exposure to the most harmful UPFs (Yahoo Lifestyle summary). Second, clinicians and public health programmes should continue to prioritise counselling on overall dietary patterns rather than demonising processing per se — emphasise reduction of saturated fat, added sugars and sodium and the benefits of whole foods. Third, policymakers should accelerate systems changes: fully implement the planned SSB tax phases, adopt clear front‑of‑package nutrition labelling, regulate marketing aimed at children and support small retailers and traditional markets to supply fresh and minimally processed goods at affordable prices (American Heart Association newsroom; Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand).
The take‑away for Thai families is simple: not every item with an industrial ingredient list is a health threat, but most UPFs are best limited. Thoughtful choices — leaning on frozen produce, low‑sodium canned staples and plain dairy or plant‑based alternatives — can keep modern life convenient while protecting heart health. At the same time, Thailand’s public health system and policy makers must act to curb the spread of HFSS packaged foods through taxes, labelling and retail incentives so that the healthier UPFs remain the affordable, practical choices for every community (American Heart Association newsroom; Profiling ultra‑processed foods in Thailand).