Health

Add as a preferred source on Google

Amy’s Kitchen Model Estimates $359,836 Lifetime Gap From High Ultra-Processed Food Intake

The model assigns $338,419 to an estimated 10-month reduction in life expectancy; $21,417 represents modeled additional medical care, long-term care and lost earnings.

Updated 2 min read
A shopper examines a packaged meal in a supermarket in Petaluma, California. (AI-generated image / EconoTimes)
A shopper examines a packaged meal in a supermarket in Petaluma, California. (AI-generated image / EconoTimes)

A U.S. food maker’s commissioned analysis estimates that adults who maintain high ultra-processed food intake face a $359,836 lifetime economic gap compared with those who consistently eat relatively little, largely because the model assigns a value to shorter life expectancy.

The model attributes $338,419 of the total to an estimated 10-month loss in life expectancy. The other $21,417 represents modeled additional medical care, long-term care and lost earnings. Type 2 diabetes accounts for 76% of that $21,417 in modeled health-related costs, Amy’s Kitchen said when it released the analysis Oct. 19. The headline estimate is therefore not a forecast of what an individual would pay out of pocket.

Health economist Lindsay Allen, founder of Proven Policy, compared hypothetical adults starting at age 20 in the highest and lowest fifths of ultra-processed food consumption, assuming each remained in the same relative group throughout adulthood. The model covered type 2 diabetes, heart disease, colorectal cancer, depression and Crohn’s disease. Amy’s Kitchen commissioned the work and said Allen designed and conducted it independently.

The company said Allen ran 1,000 simulations using different assumptions, with the estimated gap topping $200,000 in 98% of them. The full report and calculation workbook are available only on request, Amy’s Kitchen said; its public announcement does not provide enough information to reproduce the calculation. The model projects from observed associations. It does not establish that ultra-processed foods cause the conditions or that changing diets would produce the projected savings. A review by Janett Barbaresko and colleagues described evidence for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer as moderate-certainty, while evidence for mental health and inflammatory bowel disease outcomes was limited.

In a separate online survey commissioned by Amy’s Kitchen, 2,000 Americans with internet access surveyed Sept. 3-8, 2026, estimated that ultra-processed foods made up 16% of their diets. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that these foods supplied 53.0% of calories consumed by U.S. adults age 19 and older in August 2021-August 2023. The survey asked about the share of a person’s diet; the CDC measured calorie share in a different population and period, so the comparison cannot establish how much survey participants undercounted their intake.

Amy’s Kitchen released the analysis as part of its “Cooking. Not Chemistry.” campaign. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working with the Department of Agriculture on a common federal definition of ultra-processed foods.

Related articles

View all