Why is it so hard to get ultra-processed foods out of our diets? A lack of time | Lindsey Smith Taillie

Ding.

The microwave beeped. I grabbed the bowl of bright orange macaroni and cheese and slid it in front of my daughter, alongside an apple and milk, before dashing back to my laptop. My seven-year-old was home sick, and I was frantically attempting the hazardous maneuver all too familiar to post-pandemic parents: working while parenting. As I logged into Zoom, I wondered what my nutrition colleagues would think if they knew that down the hall, my kiddo was eating the verboten: ultra-processed food.

Ultra-processed foods, industrialized food substances that are often high in calories, sugar, sodium and saturated fat, are highly prevalent in the US food supply. Today, over 60% of American food purchases are composed of ultra-processed products. Scientists are still studying how these chemically manipulated foods affect the body and whether if it’s because of their poor nutrient profile, addictive qualities, the use of additives or changes to the food matrix, which affect how we eat and digest them. However, a large body of research has already linked ultra-processed foods to health concerns, including mental health issues, weight gain and type 2 diabetes.

If these foods are so bad, why am I feeding them to my kids?

It’s simple: time.

Scholars, advocates and policymakers have not fully acknowledged time scarcity, or lack of time, as one of the major drivers of ultra-processed food consumption. This time crunch forces people to rely on ultra-processed foods that are ready to heat or ready to eat to buy back time. Also unacknowledged: this time scarcity is disproportionately an issue faced by women, who remain the primary food shoppers and preparers across the globe.

Like many women, I often don’t have time to cook a full meal from scratch. I am fortunate to have the privilege of being able to afford fresh foods, the knowledge to prepare them, and a partner who cooks well and often. Still, there are days, when in the scramble of school, work, sports and bedtime, the best we can do is ramen noodles with broccoli or cereal and fruit.

I’m not alone. How people – especially women – spend their time has changed radically from the mid-20th century. American women are not only working more, they’re spending more time and more effort on parenting than ever. Sociologist Jessica Calarco recently described this phenomenon as a “DIY” society, in which functions that used to be shared collectively are increasingly pushed on to families, and especially women.

No matter what you call it, the result is the same: less time for cooking. My research, using data from the American Time Use Survey, a nationally representative survey of more than 50,000 adults, found the time American women spend cooking was nearly halved from 1965 to 2007, from nearly two hours a day to just over an hour. During the same period, men’s cooking increased but remained well below women’s levels. In subsequent decades, cooking time has increased, but it remains far less than 1965 levels. This time and effort has been replaced by machines: the appliances in our homes, and the machines inside factories that create foods that are shelf-stable, transportable and convenient.

In other words, ultra-processed foods.

Cutting back our consumption of these products is critical for our health. But to do this will require a complete overhaul, not only of how we eat, but how we live.

Policies that require clear, front-of-package labels on food packages offer a good start. The Food and Drug Administration is about to propose a labeling system to indicate when foods are high in sugar, saturated fat and sodium. My research shows these types of labels help address the time and mental burden of food shopping by making it easier and quicker for parents to identify which foods are unhealthy.

But food labels are only a starting place. While labels work, they cannot fully address the socioeconomic determinants of health that affect families’ diets. In Chile, which is viewed as the global gold standard for front-of-package food labeling, mothers have reported food labels help them know what’s unhealthy – but they often still can’t afford healthier options. Now Chilean policymakers and researchers are working to develop a food assistance program that would ensure low-income families can afford healthy food.

The same is true in the US. The food industry has argued that the FDA’s proposed labels won’t effectively prevent chronic disease. In one sense, they’re right: food labels are necessary, but insufficient to achieve the transformational changes needed to improve diets and health. We need a comprehensive set of policies that address the financial, time and mental costs of food.

For example, beyond labeling, the Farm Bill is now being hotly debated in Congress, with considerable disagreement over whether the food stamp program should be updated for the cost of inflation. Scholars have long argued the food stamp program is already inadequate because it’s based on making food from scratch and doesn’t account for the time cost of preparing meals. At a minimum, ensuring food stamp benefits increase commensurate to inflation is crucial for parents to afford healthy foods instead of cheaper, ultra-processed products. Other policies like universal school lunches and increased fruit and vegetable benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children would help ensure children have access to fresh, nutritious foods.

Structural policies beyond food are equally important. Paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, universal healthcare, paid sick leave and policies like four-day work weeks or 35-hour-a-week limits on paid work would help ease time and financial costs for working families. These savings would allow parents to spend more time, energy, and money shopping for and preparing healthy food.

Many argue that parents are the ones responsible for making healthy food choices for their children. But until structural factors like time and cost are addressed, many parents have little choice at all. Comprehensive policy reform must be aimed at supporting families to address these upstream reasons why ultra-processed foods end up on our plates.

Until then, macaroni and cheese it is.