In the quest to make America healthier, the federal government is moving closer to creating a new definition of ultra-processed foods.
Transparency is beneficial for consumers because it provides information to help shoppers make choices about what’s best to eat for their diets and their families.
However, people don’t necessarily understand what constitutes ultra-processed foods, why some foods are ultra-processed, and the implications of restricting ultra-processed foods.
A big impact is on affordability, and for many Americans, it’s not just impractical or unpreferred; it would be expensive and even impossible to eliminate ultra-processed foods entirely.
We should consider whether the federal government’s proposed new definition of ultra-processed food is the right move for Americans, especially as we work to make food more affordable for everyone.
What Happened
This week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) submitted for final review the federal government’s first proposed definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also proposed a rule requiring manufacturers to notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when concluding that the use of a substance added to human or animal food is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).
These measures are intended to make Americans healthier, which is a noble and important goal. Chronic diseases rob Americans of good health and weigh on our healthcare industry.
During an event announcing the proposals, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that “Nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of ultra-processed foods, and childhood obesity now affects more than one in five American children.”
Acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas noted, “By advancing a proposed definition of ultra-processed foods, we seek to create a stronger foundation for future nutrition research.”
No further details on the UPF definition were provided.
Why This Matters
Currently, over a dozen states have created or proposed their own definition for UPF, focusing on specific food or color additives. California has both defined UPFs and banned them from schools.
The most common definition of UPF used in research is the Brazilian NOVA (new in Portuguese) classification. NOVA characterizes food based on industrial processing and ingredients not used in home cooking rather than on nutrients.
For example, ice cream made with cream, milk, eggs, sugar, and vanilla is not categorized as an ultra-processed food, but ice cream containing high-fructose corn syrup, guar gum, and monoglycerides/diglycerides is. Both have fats, sugars, and other nutrients, but one might be considered healthier than the other based on this definition of UPFs. This could be misleading to consumers, who are focused on their waistlines and heart health, which is a legitimate concern.
The challenge will be creating a definition of ultra-processed foods that doesn’t negatively label some foods as better than others on the grocery shelves, creating winners and losers as the government tips the scale in favor of one product over another.
A free economy should create space for food options, even those some policymakers don’t like.
Costs are a major factor in this discussion about new definitions of ultra-processed foods. Healthy foods are often more expensive than processed foods. Consider fresh vegetables versus canned versions. Not only are they typically more expensive, but healthy food prices have surged. According to research from the University of Warwick, Americans pay 40% more for fruits and vegetables due to massive fixed costs in supplying them to markets.
Healthy foods have short shelf lives, creating waste costs, whereas processed and ultra-processed foods can be edible for months. Processing, packaging, handling, and transportation costs directly impact food prices for healthy and fresh foods versus processed foods.
Ideally, every American should have access to the freshest foods alongside processed and ultra-processed foods to create the diets they prefer. A diet that is balanced, containing a mix of unprocessed, processed, and ultra-processed foods, is probably the right choice, but that should be the consumers’ decision.
Consumer behavior confirms that Families may not be able to afford fresh or healthy foods for every meal, snack, or ingredient. Processed and ultra-processed foods provide a good alternative, and that should not be dismissed.
As families grapple with higher food prices currently, new mandates by states and a new federal definition and the responsibilities, food reformulations, could drive costs higher on more affordable alternatives.
These are all considerations that we hope would be factored into any food policy proposals.