How young adults in the United States understand and conceptualise ultra-processed foods.

Alexandra B Larcom, Ingrid E Lofgren, Matthew J Delmonico, Amanda Missimer, Kathleen J Melanson

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nutritional science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexandra B LarcomDepartment of Nutrition, University of Rhode Island, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2182-7974

Ingrid E LofgrenDepartment of Nutrition, University of Rhode Island, USA.

Matthew J DelmonicoDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Rhode Island, USA.

Amanda MissimerDepartment of Nutrition, University of Rhode Island, USA.

Kathleen J MelansonDepartment of Nutrition, University of Rhode Island, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consumer understanding of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is poor, and no consensus definition exists. This study examines how young adults in the United States (US) define UPF and their ability to differentiate UPF from non-UPF of varying nutritional quality (NQ). In a mixed-methods survey of young adults (18-39 years) living in the US for ≥1 year, respondents defined UPF, identified whether 24 foods were UPF or not using images with front and back of package information, and answered demographic questions. Foods were categorised using NOVA for processing and Food Compass for NQ. They included a high NQ non-UPF, low NQ non-UPF, high NQ UPF, and low NQ UPF item from six food groups: fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains, protein, and snacks/sweets. Concepts used to define UPF were reported as number of respondents mentioning each in their definition. A score of correct answers out of 24 was calculated. The sample of 422 adults, mean age 26.0±6.7 years, was predominantly white (82%), female (74%), and from the Northeast (82%). Thirty concepts were identified to define UPF. The top concepts were food containing additives, preservatives, colours/dyes, or natural or artificial flavours (

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorFeeding BehaviorFood AnalysisFood, ProcessedAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleNutritive ValueSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultConsumer perceptionsfood processingmixed-methodsnutritional qualityUPF

Identifiers

PMID42065003

DOI10.1017/jns.2026.10090

PMCPMC13126058

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.