This article was previously featured in the Spring 2026 issue of Strategy Magazine.

By Will Novosedlik

Study after study shows that a host of health risks are directly linked to the excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods.

What are ultra-processed foods (UPFs)? Consider something like corn. Fresh off the cob, it’s unprocessed. Canned or frozen, it’s processed. In the form of a Dorito or a Frito, it’s ultra-processed.

According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Institutes of Health, 30% of men in Canada and 43% in the U.S. are obese. Overall, 35.5% of Canadians and 64% of Americans are overweight.

How did they get that way? It’s not just that they eat too much ultra-processed food – it’s also about what’s available to them on supermarket shelves.

A Northwestern University study found that ultra-processed foods now comprise a whopping 73% of the American food supply. In Canada, 75% of UPFs have added sugar. The average American adult gets over 60% of their daily calories from UPFs. For Canadians, it’s between 45% and 48%.

Having that much ultra-processed food in your diet means increased exposure to a grocery list of diseases: a 31% higher risk of obesity and 37% higher odds of diabetes; a 60% higher risk of high blood pressure and a strong link to heart disease, stroke and cardiovascular mortality; increased cancer risk, particularly colorectal cancer; links to depression, anxiety and irritable bowel syndrome; and links to systemic inflammation, oxidative stress and adverse changes to gut microbiome. In addition, ultra-processed foods tend to lack fibre and essential nutrients, so they add little value to your diet.

A big part of the problem is that UPFs are so addictive. They are designed that way. An article in The Guardian describes a study by Kevin Hall, a scientist at the UK’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), in which he enlisted 20 healthy adult volunteers to eat either an ultra-processed or a minimally processed diet for two weeks, then switch to the other diet. He encouraged them to eat however much they wanted. He found that volunteers consumed 500 calories more each day when they were eating the ultra-processed diet – and their blood work showed elevated levels of hormones responsible for hunger.

To minimize the amount of ultra-processed food on your plate, the Canadian government has introduced front-of-pack (FOP) warning labels that zero in on levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. Any product that exceeds 15% of your daily requirement of one or more of the “three Ss” must display the FOP warning. Conversely, if the product’s salt, sugar and saturated fat levels fall below the 15% mark, no FOP labelling is required.

Canada has had mandatory nutritional panels on the back of food packaging since 2005. But the negative stats cited above demonstrate that this has not been enough of a deterrent. While the Nutrition Facts table on the back provides detailed data, many consumers find it complex or time-consuming to read. The FOP symbol is prominently displayed in the upper right corner of the face panel in most cases, and is much simpler. Just two words: “High in” or “Élévé en.” You can’t miss it.

Although the deadline for mandatory labelling in Canada was January 1 of this year, this kind of labelling has been mandated in many other countries for years. Canada is rather late to the game, but this aligns it with over 40 countries, such as Chile and Mexico, that have seen measurable declines in the purchase of unhealthy foods following similar labelling mandates. Nevertheless, Canadian food companies were given three years to prepare for this, either by redesigning their packaging to accommodate the new warning label or by reformulating their products to fall within the 15% guideline, thus negating the need for the new label.

What do consumers think? When surveyed in recent research led by Dalhousie’s Dr. Sylvain Charlebois (pictured right), professor in the Faculty of Management and senior director, Agri-Food Analytics Lab, consumers were confused by the new label.

“We surveyed Canadians six months ago,” says Charlebois, “and we’re surveying them again in March about these labels, asking them if they’ve seen it, and if so, do they understand it. And many Canadians don’t have a clue. They actually don’t see it.

But the professor goes on to say that even in the short time since January 1, there has been enough coverage in the media about it that people are beginning to notice. He believes that with exposure to these labels over time, consumers will associate them with good nutrition. Says Charlebois, “The bottom line is we’re addicted to sugar and sodium. This policy is needed to help change that.”

Jo-Ann McArthur, president of consultancy Nourish Food Marketing (pictured bottom left), agrees that consumers will adjust.

“I think the use of this labelling may start to cause consumers to further question how processed their products are,” says McArthur. “We’re seeing a real rise in discussions around this term, ‘ultra-processed’ food.”

Lisa Papaloni (bottom right), senior director of strategy, marketing and innovation North America at Aspire Bakeries, doesn’t see this as a challenge but as an opportunity. “Canadians have demonstrated a sustained interest in healthy foods and this is an opportunity to help better inform their decisions,” says Papaloni. “It also creates an opportunity to broaden the initiative and craft a strategy around developing healthier product options. These labels will drive consumer awareness, shift purchasing behaviour and present an advantage for some products when consumers compare them to other like-products.”

Which leads to the issue of reformulation. As Charlebois says, that was the whole point of the legislation. But it’s tricky. McArthur reminds us of the Campbell’s soup reformulation fiasco several years ago.

“If you remember Campbell’s soup when they went out ahead of everybody and reduced the sodium in their soups. They did a big campaign around that, and it failed. Consumers didn’t like the taste,” she recalls. “So, Campbell’s had to revert to its original recipe.”

Everyone interviewed for this article agreed that no matter how healthy the reformulated product is, people won’t pick it up if it doesn’t taste good.

McArthur makes the point that Canada’s three-year transitional period encouraged many of her clients to reformulate. “We had more than a two-year run-up to this, so most CPG clients took advantage of the lead time and reformulated. We also work with some big international ingredient suppliers. I know that there has been a whole reformulation wave and a lot of new products that those companies have come out with to help product developers in their reformulation.”

It is more of a challenge for some than for others. Lesya Chapman, director of marketing and communications at Chapman’s Ice Cream, notes that this was a big project that continued to snowball.

“We looked at each product family and made design changes and updates at the same time,” she says. “We decided we did not need to re-engineer our recipes to comply. Our product quality and consistency remains the same. It is no surprise to the consumer that most ice cream products are higher in sugar and fat. This highlighted labelling can help them to incorporate their treats into their diet in a more informed way.”

At the retail level, the picture can be even more nuanced. “For products that require it, the FOP label has been applied. But not all products are equal,” says Loblaw senior director of product development, Nicolas Diard. “We have only had to reformulate less than 1% of our product line. And when you factor in something like our Blue Menu line, the rule is that all our presidential Blue Menu products won’t have FOP. If you go to a frozen single serving tray, you expect it to be high in salt. But not Blue Menu. So, I think it can help some consumers choose the healthier alternative.”

Julie Pacheco, VP, Loblaw Agency, sees all this as a net positive. “I think it’s caused the vendor community to rethink. It’s pushed us to innovate. It has inspired us to have different conversations around the future of product development. It’s a great win for the Canadian consumer because they’re ultimately getting products with less sodium, less sugar and less fat in their daily diet.”