Editor's Plate: The Puzzle That Is Ultraprocessed Foods
Our featured story this month is about ultraprocessed foods (UPFs). Its timing partially was based on Robert Kennedy’s recent promise on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast that there would be a definition of the ambiguous term “by April” – followed by front-of-package labeling.
But only partially based on Secretary Kennedy’s comments. We figured the debate over UPFs would remain hot this summer, although it did seem like the talk was dying down in recent weeks. Perhaps everyone was waiting for the FDA to make some big announcement. I thought Kennedy's Joe Rogan promise was that big move.
I’m not surprised the secretary of Health & Human Services Dept. didn’t make his self-imposed deadline – partly because of his bombastic style, but mostly because of the complexity of the subject. I think he realized he bit off more than even his healthy-diet mouth could chew.
In the 30-plus years I’ve been writing about the food & beverage industry, I’ve seen a number – maybe all – of the heads of FDA, and USDA too, try to balance the altruistic food safety aspects of their jobs with the political ones. They’ve all been part of a new regime with different ideas than the previous one. They owe their jobs to the president, and this president has shown he’s not averse to firing cabinet-level advisors if he doesn’t like how they’re doing their jobs.
HHS and FDA leaders also bring passionate ideas about how things should be done … and as the figurehead of the MAHA movement, RFK Jr. also brought that baggage to his job. Eventually, they all realize there are laws, rules and processes that must be followed when changing things as important as food safety and nutritional health.
“It was only a matter of time before they realized how hard it would be to establish a definition that was going to target the foods they didn’t like without lumping in items that they want to encourage,” Keller & Heckman attorney Mark Thompson told me. “It sounds like they’re considering a downshift to more of a generalized guidance on UPFs in lieu of proposing a thorny definition.”
None of which excuses HHS from coming up with at least a definition, if not some regulatory framework. This administration may not have created the debate, but they certainly fanned the flames. Now they have to figure out a way to put out this fire.
They've managed things like this before. Long ago, coming up with a definition of "healthy" seemed quixotic. Dealing with the public outcry and state laws over genetically engineered ingredients wasn't easy, but they did it.
But another complication arrived at the end of April. Another civil lawsuit was filed against “the usual suspects,” this time in Wisconsin, alleging UPFs gave a young woman type-2 diabetes 10 years ago when she was a teen, according to Bloomberg Law.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, seeks $1 billion in damages. It makes the same argument as past suits: that ultraprocessed foods are engineered to be addictive and that companies took a page out of the tobacco industry's playbook when marketing them to children.
It also names the same 12 suspects as previous cases: Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz International, Post Holdings, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, Kellanova, Kellogg, Mars, Conagra Brands and Unilever.
You can bet there will be more suits. One of these days, a judge is not going to be so quick to toss one of these cases.
So, even in the absence of some big government announcement, think about what you can do to make your products less ultraprocessed. Despite initial whining and lingering resistance, many processors are showing that synthetic colors can be replaced. While making a perfectly “clean” – by the standards of the current debate – product will be very tough in some cases, I believe the great minds of food science can come up with solutions.
Unlike bioengineered food labeling, I don't think the public’s concern over UPFs will fade. Are you ready for your products to wear a UPF label?
About the Author
Dave Fusaro
Editor in Chief
Dave Fusaro has served as editor in chief of Food Processing magazine since 2003. Dave has 30 years experience in food & beverage industry journalism and has won several national ASBPE writing awards for his Food Processing stories. Dave has been interviewed on CNN, quoted in national newspapers and he authored a 200-page market research report on the milk industry. Formerly an award-winning newspaper reporter who specialized in business writing, he holds a BA in journalism from Marquette University. Prior to joining Food Processing, Dave was Editor-In-Chief of Dairy Foods and was Managing Editor of Prepared Foods.