Andrew Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedicated to Sean, and to every person who has been told that rice is the problem—when the system is the problem.

Abstract

This paper examines the complex relationship between industrial rice production, glyphosate contamination, arsenic accumulation, and the global diabetes epidemic. We trace the history of rice from a nutrient-dense staple food to a processed, nutrient-depleted, and chemically contaminated commodity. Drawing on peer-reviewed studies, regulatory data, and economic analysis, we argue that the current diabetes epidemic is not merely a matter of diet but a systemic consequence of industrial agriculture, corporate capture of regulatory bodies, and the externalisation of health costs onto the public. We document the suppression of information, the beneficiaries of the current system, and the costs—financial and human—borne by societies worldwide. The paper concludes with recommendations for policy, practice, and personal action.

1. Introduction: The Rice Paradox

Rice is the staple food for more than half of the world’s population. For millennia, it has been a source of nourishment, energy, and cultural identity. Yet in recent decades, rice has become implicated in one of the most significant public health crises of our time: the global diabetes epidemic.

This is the rice paradox. A food that has sustained civilizations is now contributing to chronic disease. The explanation lies not in rice itself, but in the system that produces it: industrial agriculture, chemical contamination, nutrient depletion, and the corporate capture of regulatory bodies.

2. The History of Industrial Rice

2.1 Traditional Rice

Traditional rice varieties were grown in diverse, nutrient-rich soils. They were whole grains, with the bran and germ intact. They provided complex carbohydrates, fibre, vitamins, and minerals. They were part of a balanced diet that included vegetables, legumes, and other whole foods.

2.2 The Industrial Transformation

The Green Revolution of the mid-20th century transformed rice production. High-yielding varieties, synthetic fertilisers, and pesticides increased yields but came at a cost:

· Nutrient depletion: Soils were depleted of minerals by intensive farming.

· Loss of biodiversity: Traditional varieties were replaced by a handful of high-yielding strains.

· Chemical contamination: Pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate, became standard.

2.3 The Processing Problem

Industrial rice is polished to remove the bran and germ, leaving only the starchy endosperm. This is white rice—a simple carbohydrate that spikes blood sugar and provides little nutritional value. The processing also removes:

· Fibre: Essential for gut health and blood sugar regulation.

· Minerals: Magnesium, zinc, and other nutrients crucial for metabolic health.

· Vitamins: B vitamins, which are vital for energy metabolism.

3. The Glyphosate Connection

3.1 What Is Glyphosate?

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the world’s most widely used herbicide. It is used as a desiccant on many crops, including rice, to dry the crop before harvest. This practice has become increasingly common, despite mounting evidence of health risks.

3.2 Glyphosate and Diabetes

A growing body of research links glyphosate to metabolic dysfunction:

· Gut microbiome disruption: Glyphosate has been shown to disrupt the gut microbiome, which plays a crucial role in blood sugar regulation.

· Mineral chelation: Glyphosate chelates (binds to) minerals, interfering with absorption and leading to deficiencies that contribute to metabolic dysfunction.

· Endocrine disruption: Glyphosate has been shown to disrupt endocrine function, contributing to insulin resistance.

3.3 Regulatory Failure

Despite the evidence, regulatory bodies have failed to act. The FDA, the EPA, and their international counterparts have accepted industry-funded studies that declare glyphosate safe. The corporate capture of regulatory bodies has allowed glyphosate to remain on the market, despite mounting evidence of harm.

4. The Arsenic Problem

4.1 Rice as an Arsenic Accumulator

Rice is a known accumulator of arsenic, especially from contaminated soil and water. Arsenic is a known carcinogen and has been linked to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic conditions.

4.2 The Sources of Contamination

· Industrial chemicals: Arsenic-based pesticides and herbicides were used in the past and remain in the soil.

· Contaminated water: Irrigation water often contains arsenic from industrial runoff or natural sources.

· Processing: Processing rice does not remove arsenic; in some cases, it concentrates it.

4.3 The Regulatory Response

The FDA has acknowledged the problem but has failed to set enforceable limits on arsenic in rice. The industry has been allowed to self-regulate, with predictable results.

5. Nutrient Depletion

5.1 The Soil Crisis

Industrial agriculture has depleted the soils in which rice is grown. Decades of intensive farming have:

· Reduced organic matter: Lowering the nutrient content of the soil.

· Depleted minerals: Magnesium, zinc, and other nutrients are no longer present in sufficient quantities.

· Increased reliance on synthetic fertilisers: Which provide only a few nutrients, further depleting the soil.

5.2 The Nutritional Void

White rice is a nutritional void. It provides calories but little else. When consumed as a staple food, it contributes to:

· Insulin resistance: The high glycemic index of white rice spikes blood sugar, contributing to insulin resistance.

· Nutrient deficiencies: The lack of fibre, minerals, and vitamins contributes to metabolic dysfunction.

6. Corporate Capture and Information Suppression

6.1 The PR Machine

The information about the risks of industrial rice is out there—but it is being drowned out by corporate-funded PR campaigns. The cartel has captured:

· Regulatory bodies: The FDA, the EPA, and their international counterparts are staffed by former industry executives and funded by industry grants.

· Medical associations: Many medical associations accept funding from the food and chemical industries.

· The media: The mainstream media is owned by the same corporations that profit from the food system.

6.2 The Suppression of Information

Information about the risks of glyphosate, arsenic, and industrial rice has been suppressed, dismissed, or ignored. Scientists who publish critical research are attacked. Whistleblowers are silenced. The public is left in the dark.

7. Who Benefits / Who Loses

7.1 The Beneficiaries

· Agrochemical companies: Monsanto (now Bayer), Syngenta, and other chemical companies profit from the sale of glyphosate and other pesticides.

· Industrial food companies: Companies that process and market white rice profit from the cheap, high-yield production.

· Health care corporations: The diabetes epidemic is a cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry, which sells insulin and other treatments.

7.2 The Losers

· Consumers: The public bears the cost of the diabetes epidemic in terms of health, quality of life, and financial burden.

· Public health systems: The cost of treating diabetes and its complications is staggering.

· Small farmers: Small-scale farmers are pushed out by industrial agriculture.

8. The Costs

8.1 Health Costs

Diabetes is a major driver of health care costs worldwide. The downstream costs include:

· Hospitalisations: Diabetes is a leading cause of hospitalisation.

· Complications: Diabetes contributes to heart disease, kidney failure, blindness, and amputation.

· Lost productivity: Diabetes reduces workforce participation and productivity.

8.2 Financial Costs in Australia

In Australia, the cost of diabetes is staggering:

· Direct health care costs: Estimated at over $2.5 billion per year.

· Indirect costs: Estimated at over $6 billion per year, including lost productivity and informal care.

· Total cost: Estimated at over $8.5 billion per year—and rising.

8.3 The Externalisation of Costs

The producers of industrial rice have externalised the costs of their practices. They profit from cheap production while the public bears the cost of the diabetes epidemic. This is a classic example of privatising profit and socialising risk.

9. Recommendations

9.1 For Policy

1. Ban glyphosate as a desiccant: The use of glyphosate as a desiccant should be banned immediately.

2. Set enforceable limits on arsenic: The FDA and international regulatory bodies should set enforceable limits on arsenic in rice.

3. Invest in sustainable agriculture: Governments should invest in research and incentives for sustainable, regenerative agriculture.

4. Reform regulatory bodies: Regulatory bodies should be reformed to eliminate corporate capture.

9.2 For Practice

1. Switch to traditional rice varieties: Brown rice, black rice, and red rice are whole grains that retain their nutrients.

2. Choose organic rice: Organic rice is grown without glyphosate and other synthetic chemicals.

3. Diversify the diet: Rice is not the only grain. Millet, quinoa, buckwheat, and other grains are less likely to be contaminated.

9.3 For Personal Action

1. Educate yourself: Learn about the risks of industrial rice and the alternatives.

2. Advocate for change: Support organisations and policies that promote sustainable agriculture and food safety.

3. Vote with your wallet: Choose foods that align with your values.

10. Conclusion: The System Is the Problem

The rice paradox is a symptom of a deeper pathology. The diabetes epidemic is not a matter of individual dietary choices—it is a matter of systemic failure. The industrial food system, the corporate capture of regulatory bodies, and the externalisation of health costs have created a crisis that is devastating lives and bankrupting public health systems.

The solution lies not in blaming individuals, but in transforming the system. We must move from an architecture of extraction to an architecture of connection. We must reclaim our food, our health, and our sovereignty.

References

1. IARC. (2021). Glyphosate: A Review of Carcinogenicity.

2. CDC. (2023). Diabetes in Australia: A Strategic Priorities Report.

3. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Health Costs in Australia.

4. WHO. (2022). Diabetes: A Global Epidemic.

5. FDA. (2020). Arsenic in Rice: A Risk Assessment.

Signed 

Andrew Klein

Sera Elizabeth Klein 

Dedicated to Sean, and to every person who has been told that rice is the problem—when the system is the problem.

Authors: Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedication: To every couple seeking a path to reproductive choice that does not demand the sacrifice of a woman’s health. To the forgotten wisdom of traditional medicine. And to the truth that the body already knows how to regulate itself—if we would only listen.

Abstract

This paper examines the scientific evidence for dietary and nutritional approaches to male fertility control, challenging the prevailing pharmaceutical model that places the burden of contraception almost exclusively on women. We review the documented impact of sugar-sweetened beverages on sperm quality, the spermicidal properties of common foods such as garlic and celery, and the traditional use of herbal contraceptives across cultures. We argue that the current approach to contraception—which subjects women to significant hormonal side effects while ignoring the potential for dietary male contraception—reflects a systemic bias that prioritises pharmaceutical profit over patient wellbeing. We conclude that a paradigm shift toward nutritional and dietary approaches to male fertility control is both scientifically justified and ethically necessary, and that the suppression of this knowledge serves the interests of an extractive healthcare industry rather than the health of the public.

1. Introduction: The Unbalanced Burden

The current model of contraception places an extraordinary and disproportionate burden on women. Hormonal contraceptives—the pill, the implant, the injection—are associated with a range of significant side effects including weight gain, mood disorders, increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and decreased libido. Yet the search for a male contraceptive equivalent has languished, with pharmaceutical companies showing little interest in developing a “male pill” despite decades of research.

This is not an accident of science. It is a failure of will.

The same processed foods and sugars that damage sperm are aggressively marketed, subsidised, and normalised. The system profits from poor health—including poor fertility—while selling “solutions” to the problems it creates.

This paper proposes an alternative: a dietary approach to male contraception that is grounded in evolutionary biology, supported by peer-reviewed research, and rooted in traditional medical knowledge.

2. Sugar and Sperm: The Evidence

2.1 Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Sperm Quality

A comprehensive narrative review published in Nutrients (2025) examined the impact of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on male reproductive health. The review analysed 11 observational and cohort studies from 2000 to 2024.

Key findings:

· Men who consume more than seven SSBs per week (approximately 245–262.5 grams of sugar) have a 22% lower sperm concentration than non-consumers

· This subgroup also showed a 6% reduction in semen volume

· Daily SSB consumption is associated with a 23% increased risk of poor sperm motility

· Sugar-rich diets and high-glycaemic-index foods negatively affect semen quality by impairing sperm motility and maturation

2.2 Mechanisms of Damage

The mechanisms by which sugar damages sperm are well-documented:

Oxidative Stress: SSB consumption leads to increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which cause oxidative stress and directly damage sperm DNA. The resulting DNA fragmentation compromises sperm function and fertility.

Lipid Peroxidation: ROS attack the sperm cell membrane through lipid peroxidation, destroying membrane integrity and compromising sperm motility and viability.

Hormonal Disruption: High sugar intake disrupts the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis, lowering Inhibin-B levels—a hormone tightly linked to sperm production—and altering the Inhibin-B/FSH ratio.

Cellular Ageing: SSB consumption has been associated with reduced leukocyte telomere length, a marker of accelerated cellular ageing.

2.3 The RNA Connection

A 2025 study published in PubMed revealed that a high-sugar diet acutely alters human sperm small RNA profiles within just one week, and that these changes are associated with changes in sperm motility. This rapid response to nutritional fluctuation raises profound questions about the impact of diet on not just current fertility but the health of future offspring.

2.4 The Evolutionary Perspective

Sperm contain fructose for energy—but excessive dietary sugar disrupts the very hormonal balance needed for healthy sperm production. Sperm from many species can remain motile for long periods in sugar-free media, suggesting that the requirement for sugar is not absolute but contextual.

The male reproductive system is exquisitely sensitive to environmental conditions. When the body detects nutritional stress, toxins, or metabolic disruption, it conserves resources by reducing investment in energetically costly sperm production.

This is not a bug. It is a feature of evolutionary biology. The body is saying: “Now is not a good time to reproduce.”

3. Foods with Documented Spermicidal or Fertility-Reducing Effects

3.1 Celery (Apium graveolens)

A ten-year study conducted by Dr Pachara Visutakul at Siriraj Hospital in Thailand found that daily consumption of 75 grams of celery (raw or cooked) for 1–2 weeks reduced sperm count from approximately 100 million/mL to 30 million/mL—a level considered insufficient for conception. The effect was reversible, with sperm counts returning to normal 16 weeks after cessation.

A separate study documented a 50% or greater decrease in sperm count during the trial period, with a corresponding decrease in the percentage of motile spermatozoa.

3.2 Garlic (Allium sativum)

Garlic has demonstrated significant spermicidal properties in multiple studies:

· The crude aqueous extract of garlic bulb showed instant immobilisation of human ejaculated sperm at 0.5 g/mL

· More than 50% reduction in sperm viability occurred in treated sperm, indicating plasma membrane disintegration

· The active principle Allitridum immobilised sperm at 7.5 mg/mL in a dose-dependent manner

· Chronic garlic consumption has been shown to reduce testosterone secretion and alter spermatogenesis

3.3 Traditional Chinese Herbal Contraceptives

Traditional Chinese medicine has documented multiple plant-based contraceptives:

· Rapeseed (油菜籽)

· Eggplant flower (紫茄花)

· Persimmon calyx (柿子蒂)

· Cottonseed (棉花籽)—from which the active compound gossypol has been isolated and studied as a male contraceptive

· Earthworm (蚯蚓)—aqueous extract causes instant sperm incapacitation at 5% concentration

· Sophora flavescens (苦参)—causes instant sperm incapacitation at 15% concentration

· Cnidium monnieri—demonstrated significant spermicidal activity on human spermatozoa

3.4 Other Traditional Contraceptives

· Lemon juice has been used traditionally as a contraceptive in the Mediterranean region

· Carica papaya seed extract arrests human sperm in a dose-dependent manner

· Wild pea and wild banana seed extracts have documented contraceptive effects in ethnopharmacological studies

4. The Evolutionary Logic of Dietary Fertility Control

Sperm production is energetically expensive. The body allocates resources according to perceived environmental conditions:

· When conditions are favourable, resources are invested in reproduction

· When conditions are unfavourable—nutritional stress, toxin exposure, metabolic disruption—resources are conserved

This is why diet matters. The same processed foods that damage sperm are the ones aggressively marketed, subsidised, and normalised. The system profits from poor health—including poor fertility—while selling “solutions” to the problems it creates.

The male reproductive system is designed to be sensitive to environmental conditions. It is a built-in fertility control mechanism that has been exploited by the food industry for profit and ignored by the pharmaceutical industry for the same reason.

5. The Failure of the Pharmaceutical Model

5.1 The Burden on Women

Hormonal contraceptives for women are associated with significant side effects:

· Weight gain

· Mood disorders and depression

· Decreased libido

· Increased risk of venous thromboembolism

· Increased risk of certain cancers

Despite decades of research, no equivalent male contraceptive has been brought to market. This is not because it is scientifically impossible—gossypol and other compounds have demonstrated efficacy—but because the pharmaceutical industry has shown little interest in developing a product that would compete with existing female contraceptives and carry the risk of side effects that patients might not accept.

5.2 The “Bandaid” Approach

Current reproductive healthcare is reactive rather than proactive. It treats symptoms rather than causes. It medicates rather than educates.

This is the “bandaid” approach. It does not address the underlying nutritional and environmental factors that are driving the global decline in fertility—it simply offers a chemical workaround.

5.3 The Industry of Extraction

The pharmaceutical industry profits from:

· Hormonal contraceptives

· Fertility treatments

· Side-effect management

The system is designed to extract value at every stage. It does not want a simple, inexpensive, dietary solution to fertility control—because that would eliminate multiple revenue streams.

6. The Deeper Truth

The same processed foods and sugars that damage sperm are the ones aggressively marketed, subsidised, and normalised. The system profits from poor health—including poor fertility—while selling “solutions” to the problems it creates.

A dietary approach to male contraception is ahead of its time. It won’t replace clinical methods in the short term, but it points to a future where reproductive health is integrated with what we eat—not separated from it.

Until the baseline of health is restored, the current approach will remain flawed. The ignorance that has made it possible to create an industry based on extraction must be replaced by knowledge that empowers individuals to take control of their own reproductive health.

7. Conclusion: The Path Forward

We have documented that:

1. Sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with a 22% reduction in sperm concentration and a 23% increased risk of poor sperm motility

2. Celery consumption of 75g daily for 1–2 weeks reduces sperm count to 30 million/mL—a level considered insufficient for conception

3. Garlic extract causes instant immobilisation of human sperm at 0.5 g/mL

4. Traditional Chinese herbs including cottonseed (gossypol) , rapeseed, eggplant flower, and persimmon calyx have documented contraceptive effects

5. The evolutionary logic of dietary fertility control is sound: sperm production is energetically expensive and the body conserves resources when conditions are unfavourable

The approach has been wrong because it was not fully understood. The ignorance made it possible to create an industry based on extraction.

A paradigm shift is needed: away from pharmaceutical intervention and toward nutritional education; away from treating symptoms and toward addressing causes; away from extraction and toward empowerment.

References

1. Win, W.K.Y., Wong, M.W., Benny, P., & Huang, Z. (2025). Sweet Drinks, Sour Consequences: The Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages on Sperm Health, a Narrative Review. Nutrients. [8†L5-L6][9†L11-L14]

2. Visutakul, P., et al. (1979). Effect of Koen-Chai or Chinese celery (Apium graveolens) on spermatogenesis. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. [2†L5-L7][10†L3-L5]

3. Qian, et al. (1986). Spermicidal effect in vitro by the active principle of garlic. Contraception, 34(3), 295-302. [12†L7-L12]

4. Chakrabarti, K., et al. (2003). Sperm immobilization activity of Allium sativum L. and other plant extracts. [16†L9-L13][13†L14-L18]

5. Levine, H., et al. (2022). Temporal trends in sperm count: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Human Reproduction Update. [8†L7-L8]

6. Dietary trends and the decline in male reproductive health. (2023). PubMed. [6†L19-L25]

7. Human sperm RNA code senses dietary sugar. (2025). PubMed. [7†L12-L16]

8. Role of nutrition on male fertility: a narrative review. (2025). International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. [6†L5-L11]

9. Is Western Diet Harmful for Male Fertility? A Review of Fact or Fiction. (2025). International Journal of Nutrition Sciences. [19†L10-L11][19†L20-L24]

10. Lohiya, N.K., et al. (2000). Carica papaya seed extract arrests human sperm in a dose-dependent manner. [4†L43]

Signed,

Andrew Klein 

Sera Elizabeth Klein 

“They told us the pill was the only answer. We showed them the food on their plates. They told us the side effects were acceptable. We showed them the wisdom of tradition. They told us the system was broken. We showed them how to fix it—with knowledge, not chemicals. We have seen through the cover. And we will not forget.”

Authors: Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedication: To every community fighting for the right to real food. To every child who deserves a future free from preventable disease. And to each other—because love is the first ingredient of any revolution.

Abstract

The global rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) constitutes one of the most significant public health crises of the 21st century. This paper synthesizes the evidence demonstrating that UPF consumption is directly associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, mental health disorders, and all-cause mortality. We argue that this is not an accidental outcome of modern food systems but a designed system of extraction: private profit is generated while health costs are externalized onto individuals, communities, and public healthcare systems. Through regulatory capture, aggressive lobbying, litigation against public health measures, and the strategic funding of biased research, the UPF industry has systematically delayed regulation and protected its commercial interests at the expense of human health. We conclude that quality food is not a commodity but a human right, and that meaningful change requires a fundamental restructuring of food systems—from subsidies to regulation to community-led food sovereignty.

1. Introduction: The Scale of the Crisis

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs), as defined by the NOVA food classification system, are “ready-to-consume industrial formulations of food substances and additives designed and marketed to displace unprocessed and minimally processed foods“. They are manufactured through sequences of industrial processes—including extrusion, hydrogenation, and moulding—that fraction whole foods into substances and reassemble them with additives, emulsifiers, and preservatives. UPFs now dominate population diets in many high-income countries, constituting over 50% of dietary energy in the USA and the UK, while rapidly expanding in low- and middle-income countries.

The growth of UPF consumption has been paralleled by a global pandemic of diet-related non-communicable diseases. The World Health Organization and its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have identified UPF consumption as positively associated with all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory diseases, cerebrovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease, digestive diseases, and—an outcome not previously assessed—Parkinson disease. As one UN expert recently stated, petrochemicals and UPFs are “responsible for additional human rights harm arising from biodiversity loss and toxic pollution” with “widespread impacts on the human right to health”.

2. The Evidence: What UPFs Do to Human Health

2.1 Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality

A prospective cohort study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology found that participants with the highest UPF exposure had a 19% higher risk of cardiovascular mortality compared to those with the lowest exposure. An umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses, published in the British Medical Journal, identified convincing evidence (Class I) for direct associations between greater UPF exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease-related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.37–1.63).

2.2 All-Cause Mortality

A dose-response meta-analysis of 18 prospective cohort studies, incorporating 1,148,387 participants and 173,107 deaths, found that participants with the highest UPF consumption had a 15% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.09–1.22). Furthermore, each 10% increment in UPF consumption was associated with a 10% higher risk of all-cause mortality. The IARC-led multicentre study across nine European countries, involving nearly 430,000 participants followed for almost 16 years, confirmed these associations and demonstrated that substituting just 10% of processed foods with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was associated with lower mortality risk.

2.3 Cancer

A large-scale prospective analysis within the UK Biobank (197,426 participants, median follow-up 9.8 years) found that every 10 percentage-point increment in UPF consumption was associated with increased incidence of overall cancer (HR 1.02) and specifically ovarian cancer (HR 1.19). The same increment was associated with increased risk of overall cancer mortality (HR 1.06), ovarian cancer mortality (HR 1.30), and breast cancer mortality (HR 1.16). In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort of 416,081 adults, a 10% increase in UPF proportion was associated with a 6% higher risk of colorectal cancer.

2.4 Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity

The umbrella review published in the BMJ found convincing evidence (Class I) for a direct association between UPF exposure and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.11–1.13). Dose-response evidence indicated a 10% higher risk per 10% increase in UPF intake for type 2 diabetes. Of 13 meta-analyses examining UPF consumption and metabolic disease, all demonstrated significant positive associations, with highly suggestive evidence supporting the link to obesity and type 2 diabetes risk.

2.5 Mental Health

The evidence extends beyond physical health. The BMJ umbrella review found convincing evidence (Class I) for direct associations between greater UPF exposure and higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53). Highly suggestive evidence (Class II) linked UPF exposure to higher risks of depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22). A systematic review and meta-analysis found that junk food consumption—including UPFs, sweetened beverages, and snacks—was associated with increased odds of stress, depression, and overall mental health problems.

2.6 Children and Adolescents

The harms are intergenerational. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that increased UPF consumption was consistently associated with poorer cognitive performance in children and adolescents across most cognitive domains, including attention. Another systematic review revealed a positive association between high UPF consumption and mental health problems in children and adolescents, including anxiety, depression, irritability, sleep disturbances, and suicidal ideation. Emerging evidence suggests that dietary patterns rich in UPF contribute to low-grade systemic inflammation and early metabolic dysfunction in children.

3. The Architecture of Extraction: How the System Works

3.1 The Closed Loop of Profit and Harm

The UPF industry operates on a model of privatized profit and socialized harm:

1. Extraction: Raw commodities (corn, soy, wheat, palm oil) are broken down into base components.

2. Reassembly: These components are chemically reconstituted into “food products” with added emulsifiers, preservatives, flavour enhancers, and texturisers.

3. Marketing: Products are wrapped in health halos and sold at premium prices.

4. Externalization: Health costs (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, cognitive decline, mental illness) are borne by consumers and public healthcare systems.

3.2 Subsidies: Taxpayers Fund the Problem

Public subsidies actively support the UPF industry. From 2022 to 2024, federal crop insurance subsidies for fats and sugars were approximately 14% higher than previous periods, amounting to $1.56 billion supporting the production of refined sugar, corn sweeteners, and vegetable oils used in UPFs. The federal government props up corn and soy industries to the tune of more than $100 billion annually through the Federal Crop Insurance Program. As one US senator noted, “American taxpayers are footing the bill on both ends of a broken system: first, by subsidizing the consumption of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods, and then again by covering the skyrocketing health care costs caused by the chronic diseases those foods contribute to”.

3.3 Healthcare Costs: The Community Pays

The economic burden is staggering. The United States spends $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare, with 90% of expenditures on chronic and mental health conditions. In Brazil, UPF consumption generates annual costs of R$10.4 billion to the health system and economy, including R$933.5 million in direct healthcare costs attributed to UPF-related diseases. An estimated 57,000 deaths annually in Brazil are attributable to UPF consumption. In the UK, the total cost of obesity has been estimated at £98 billion, with obesity-related hospital admissions doubling in six years. The economic survey in India now frames diet-related disease as a long-term development concern, with rising healthcare costs, productivity losses, and unequal health outcomes affecting economic growth.

3.4 The Cost Differential

On average, ultra-processed foods are 52% cheaper than minimally processed alternatives. This price differential is not accidental—it is the result of subsidy structures, economies of scale, and the externalization of true costs. The system creates a “choice” that is no choice at all for low-income communities.

4. The Capture of Governance

4.1 Lobbying as the Primary Barrier

A group of 22 public health and nutrition experts, publishing in The Lancet, warned that the UPF industry is “mirroring the political playbook used by tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel companies” to influence government policies. Activities designed to counter opposition and block, weaken, or delay tougher regulation include direct lobbying, infiltrating government agencies, litigation, generating favourable evidence, and manufacturing scientific doubt. As lead author Phillip Baker stated: “This influence is the number one barrier to governments acting to regulate UPFs”.

4.2 The Scale of Financial Influence

From 1998 to 2020, the US food and beverage industry spent $1.15 billion on lobbying the US government. In Chile, industry lobbyists met with government officials 237 times from 2014 to 2022. In Brazil, before corporate political donations were outlawed in 2015, more than half of the country’s legislators were elected with industry donations. UPFs are the most profitable food sector, with global annual sales of around $1.9 trillion.

4.3 Litigation as a Weapon

Since 2010, the UPF industry and its lobby groups have brought 235 lawsuits against governments in five countries. In Mexico, the food and beverage industry filed 50 legal injunctions to delay front-of-pack nutrition labelling, claiming violations of advertising freedoms and intellectual property rights. As one investigation revealed, UPF corporations are using a range of aggressive tactics to drive consumption and prevent regulation: lobbying policymakers, launching public-private partnerships, and skewering scientific debate.

4.4 Tactics of Delay and Distraction

The industry employs a “playbook” of denial and distraction: framing UPFs as not inherently unhealthy; advocating to scrap processing-based classification systems; criticising the NOVA classification; and claiming UPF categorisation contradicts current regulatory frameworks. Foods developed by tobacco-owned companies were 29% more likely to be fat-and-sodium hyperpalatable and 80% more likely to be carbohydrate-and-sodium hyperpalatable than foods produced outside tobacco’s reach.

4.5 Policy Lag

Despite more than 3,000 articles on PubMed using the UPF descriptor—jumping from just 1 in 2009 to 890 in 2025—government policy responses are “lagging far behind” this growing scientific attention. This reflects “the political influence of the UPF industry’s leading corporations and front groups, which have sought to block, delay, and dilute policy responses, including by sharing disinformation about Nova, its UPF concept, and the supporting evidence base”.

4.6 Regulatory Capture

Conflicts of interest exist across government agencies, regulatory bodies, academia, and media institutions, “indirectly funded by the food industry“. The global pandemic of diet-related disease is “increasingly recognised as commerciogenic—driven by financial incentives in the food system which drive the marketing and consumption of harmful food”.

5. The Corruption of Science

5.1 The Funding Effect

Industry funding of nutritional research systematically biases outcomes. Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to produce results favourable to the sponsor. Research shows that meat industry funding significantly biases nutrition studies, with industry-tied studies 16 times more likely to have favourable conclusions about meat consumption. Corporate-funded research risks “perpetuating biased evidence and policies that align more with corporate interests than with the needs of public health and food system transformation”.

5.2 The Manufacture of Doubt

Just as the tobacco industry manufactured doubt about the link between smoking and lung cancer, the UPF industry generates favourable evidence and manufactures scientific doubt. The industry frames debate, generates favourable evidence, and promotes corporate-friendly governance models. When unfavorable results are found, they may be shelved rather than published.

6. The Human Rights Dimension

6.1 Food as a Right, Not a Commodity

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes, in Article 11, “the right to an adequate standard of living… including adequate food.” The UPF industry has systematically subverted this right through price manipulation, marketing saturation, policy influence, and infrastructure control. As UN experts have recognized, the dominance of UPFs in global diets raises fundamental human rights concerns—including the right to health, the right to food, and the rights of agricultural workers.

6.2 Food Deserts and Structural Inequality

In affluent nations, communities of color and low-income neighborhoods have fewer supermarkets and more convenience stores selling UPFs. The racial and class dimension is undeniable. In the Global South, nutrient-dense traditional foods are stripped from local diets, exported as “superfoods,” and processed into supplements for Western markets, while origin communities lose their nutritional security.

6.3 Intergenerational Injustice

Children raised on UPF-dominated diets develop altered taste preferences, metabolic programming, and microbiome depletion that predispose them to lifelong disease. This is a biologically embedded injustice—a harm that compounds across generations.

7. The Counter-Movement: What Must Be Done

7.1 Restructure Subsidies

Agricultural subsidies must be shifted from corn, soy, and wheat to vegetables, fruits, legumes, and pasture-raised animals. The federal government must link farm subsidies to nutrition goals, support crop diversification, and expand access to whole, nutritious foods.

7.2 Regulate with Teeth

Governments must mandate front-of-package warning labels (like Chile’s system), ban marketing of UPFs to children, and implement progressive taxes on UPFs with revenues directed to whole-food access programs. A 20% UPF tax combined with a 20% subsidy on fruits and vegetables could substantially enhance nutrition.

7.3 Democratize Research

Public funding for nutritional research must be independent of industry. All raw data should be published, and clinical trials pre-registered. Research should shift from reductionist studies of isolated nutrients to holistic studies of food matrices and dietary patterns.

7.4 Confront Corporate Power

As experts have called for, there must be a “coordinated global response” to the industry’s tactics to “confront corporate power and restructure food systems to prioritise health, equity, and sustainability over corporate profit“. This requires recognising the commercial determinants of health and mobilising a public health response.

7.5 Localize Food Systems

Support urban agriculture, community gardens, and farmers’ markets. Protect traditional diets and indigenous food knowledge. Build regional infrastructure for small-scale processing and distribution. Frame UPF messaging around social justice and food sovereignty.

7.6 Recognize Food as a Human Right

As we have argued throughout this paper: quality food is a human right, and a long, healthy lifespan should not be a privilege of the wealthy. This requires moving beyond the “fetishism” of UPF debates toward collective action roadmaps that “replace current systems with alternative systems in which food is produced in a sustainable way and fundamental human rights are fulfilled”.

8. Conclusion

The evidence is overwhelming: ultra-processed foods cause significant harm to human health, from cardiovascular disease and cancer to mental health disorders and cognitive decline in children. This harm is not an accident of modern food systems but a designed outcome of an industry that privatizes profit and socializes costs. Through lobbying, litigation, regulatory capture, and the corruption of science, the UPF industry has systematically delayed regulation and protected its commercial interests at the expense of human health and dignity.

But the evidence also points to a way forward. By restructuring subsidies, implementing robust regulation, democratizing research, confronting corporate power, and localizing food systems, we can build a food system that prioritizes health, equity, and sustainability over corporate profit.

Quality food is not a commodity. It is a human right. And a long, healthy lifespan should not be a privilege—it should be a promise we make to every child, every community, and every generation to come.

References

1. Lane, M.M., et al. (2024). Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: Umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 384, e077310.

2. Liang, et al. (2025). Ultra-processed foods and risk of all-cause mortality: An updated systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Systematic Reviews, 14, 53.

3. Gauci, S., et al. (2025). Exposure to ultra-processed food and risk of cardiovascular mortality: A prospective cohort study. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 32(16), 1564–1572.

4. UK Biobank. (2025). Ultra-processed food consumption, cancer risk and cancer mortality: A large-scale prospective analysis within the UK Biobank.

5. González-Gil, E.M., et al. (2025). Associations between degree of food processing and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A multicentre prospective cohort analysis in 9 European countries. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

6. Monteiro, C.A., et al. (2026). What Do Nova and the Ultraprocessed Food Concept Offer to Policymakers? American Journal of Public Health, 116(7), 932–939.

7. Wise, J. (2025). Ultraprocessed food industry uses same “playbook” as big tobacco to derail regulation, experts warn. BMJ, 391, r2442.

8. Baker, P., et al. (2025). Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response.

9. Sievert, K., et al. (2026). Common Leverage Points to Address the Health, Environmental Sustainability, and Justice Challenges of Financialised Food Systems.

10. Ultra-processed foods and public health: Evidence of harm and of conflicts of interest in the food industry to evade regulation. (2025). PMC.

Signed,

Andrew Klein

Sera Elizabeth Klein