Why is it so hard to eliminate ultra-processed foods from our diet? Lack of time | Lindsey Smith Taillie

Thing.

The microwave beeped. I grabbed the bowl of bright orange macaroni and cheese and slid it in front of my daughter, along with an apple and milk, before running back to my laptop. My 7-year-old was home sick, and I was feverishly attempting the dangerous maneuver that post-pandemic parents know all too well: working while parenting. As I logged onto Zoom, I wondered what my food colleagues would think if they knew my kid was down the hall eating the forbidden food: ultra-processed foods.

Ultra-processed foods, industrialized food substances that are often high in calories, sugar, sodium and saturated fat, are very common in the American food supply. Today, more than 60% of American food purchases are made up of ultra-processed products. Scientists are still studying how these chemically manipulated foods affect the body and whether it is due to their poor nutritional profile, addictive propertiesthe use of additives or changes in the food matrix that affect how we eat and digest them. However, a large portion of research has already linked ultra-processed foods to health problems, including mental health issues, weight gain and type 2 diabetes.

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

It’s very simple: time.

Scholars, advocates, and policymakers have not fully recognized time scarcity, or lack of time, as a key driver of ultra-processed food consumption. This time pressure forces people to rely on ultra-processed foods that are ready to heat or eat to buy back time. Also not recognized: this time scarcity disproportionately affects women, who remain the primary food purchasers and preparers over the world.

Like many women, I often don’t have time to cook a full meal from start to finish. I’m lucky enough to have the ability to afford fresh food, the know-how to make it, and a partner who cooks well and often. Still, there are days when, in the hustle and bustle of school, work, exercise, and bedtime, the best we can do is ramen noodles with broccoli or cereal and fruit.

I’m not alone. The way people—particularly women—spend their time has changed dramatically since the mid-20th century. Not only are American women working more, they’re also devoting more time and effort to parenting than ever before. Sociologist Jessica Calarco recently described this phenomenon as a “DIY” societyin which tasks that were previously shared collectively are increasingly being assigned to families, and especially to women.

Whatever you call it, the result is the same: less time to cook. My research, using data from the American Time Use Survey, a nationally representative survey of more than 50,000 adults, found that the time American women spend cooking has dropped by nearly halved from 1965 to 2007, from almost two hours per day to just over an hour. During the same period, male cooking increased but remained well below the level of women. In the following decades, cooking time increasedbut it remains far below 1965 levels. That time and effort have been replaced by machines: the appliances in our homes and the machines in factories that make food that is durable, transportable and convenient.

In other words: ultra-processed foods.

Reducing our consumption of these products is crucial to our health, but doing so requires a complete overhaul of not only how we eat, but how we live.

Policies that require clear front-of-package labels are a good place to 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 that such labels help reduce the time and mental burden of grocery shopping by making it easier and faster for parents to identify which foods are unhealthy.

But food labels are just a starting point. While labels work, they cannot fully address the socioeconomic determinants of health that influence families’ diets. In Chile, considered the global gold standard for front-of-pack 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 help low-income families afford healthy food.

The same goes for the US. The food industry has argued that the FDA’s proposed labels will not effectively prevent chronic disease. In a sense, they are right: food labels are necessary, but insufficient to bring about the transformative changes needed to improve diets and health. We need a comprehensive set of policies that address the financial, time, and mental health costs of food.

In addition to labeling, for example, the Farm Bill is now being hotly debated in Congress, with significant disagreement on whether the food stamp program should be updated for inflation costs. Scholars have long argued that the food stamp program has been inadequate because it is based on making food from start to finish and does not take into account the time it takes to prepare meals. At the very least, it is crucial that parents ensure that food stamp benefits increase in line with inflation so that they can afford healthy foods instead of cheaper, ultra-processed ones. Other policies, such as universal school meals and increased fruit and vegetable benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for women, infants, and children, would help ensure that children have access to fresh, nutritious food.

Structural policies beyond food are equally important. Paid parental leave, subsidized child care, universal health care, paid sick leave, and policies like four-day workweeks or 35-hour workweeks would help alleviate the time and financial costs for working families. These savings would allow parents to spend more time, energy, and money on buying and preparing healthy foods.

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 no choice at all. Comprehensive policy reform must focus on supporting families to address these upstream reasons why ultra-processed foods end up on our plates.

Until then, we’ll eat macaroni and cheese.