Carving Out an Ultraprocessed Foods Definition
Key Highlights
- The FDA has yet to establish a definitive federal standard for ultraprocessed foods, leading to varied state and organizational standards.
- Defining ultraprocessed foods involves complex considerations of ingredients, processing methods, and their impact on health.
- Certification programs like Non-UPF emphasize evaluating both ingredients and processing techniques to identify minimally processed foods.
It’s one of the toughest conundrums the FDA has ever faced: How to define and regulate ultraprocessed foods.
No doubt Robert Kennedy, secretary of Health & Human Services, the FDA’s parent, underestimated the difficulty when he promised back in March on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast that there would be a definition of the ambiguous term “by April” — followed immediately by front-of-package labeling to flag a product as ultraprocessed.
That self-imposed deadline came and went, and we still have no federal definition of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).
"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,” says Mark Thompson, a partner at law firm Keller & Heckman.
“According to prior comments from RFK Jr., the end game was a labeling requirement that would seek to dissuade consumers from purchasing UPFs — but that has become an undesirable outcome,” Thompson continues. “So, it sounds like they’re considering a downshift to more of a generalized guidance on UPFs in lieu of proposing a thorny definition."
There’s no federal definition as of this writing, but the need remains. There seems to be enough momentum and pressure that some rule or guidance, maybe even labeling, will come from FDA or perhaps in a joint effort with USDA – like the tag-team approach on bioengineered foods labeling in 2018. Because, just like in the case of bioengineered foods, states are making up their own rules, and food & beverage processors could one day be faced with 50 slightly different UPF rules to follow.
We asked the FDA for an update, but a spokesperson declined to answer, saying only that when there is something to report, an announcement would be made.
The agency certainly knows some things about ingredients, but what’s its experience with processing methods? The latter has emerged as important a consideration in defining a UPF product as the inputs.
Brendan Niemira, chief science and technology officer at the Institute of Food Technologists, points out what most in the industry are thinking when he says, “Before policy or regulation actions on ultraprocessed foods, including package labeling and bans, should be considered, we must clearly define this broadly misunderstood food category.”
There already are some definitions, just no universally accepted or complication-free ones.
The Nova Food Classification system is the granddaddy, put forth by Brazilian researchers in 2009, and it coined the ultraprocessed term. It separates foods into four groups:
- Unprocessed or minimally processed foods (“natural” foods that have undergone minimal changes).
- Processed culinary ingredients (substances extracted from natural foods or from nature, used in cooking).
- Processed foods (foods that have been modified with the addition of ingredients like sugar, oil or salt).
- Ultraprocessed food and drink products (“industrial formulations” made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, often with little or no whole food content).
And there is a small handful of others (see chart at the end of this article).
A recent and very detailed definition comes from the Non-Ultraprocessed Foods (Non-UPF) Verification Program, a 2025 creation of the Non-GMO Project and its Food Integrity Collective.
A certification system
Just this January, the Non-UPF Verification Program published its standard and began certifying products as not ultraprocessed – and presumably rejecting ones that didn’t meet their qualifications. Its definition is not as simple as Nova’s four bullet points.
“While some emerging policies focus narrowly on specific ingredients, ultraprocessing by definition demands that we evaluate processing itself,” the group’s November 2025 announcement said. “This standard does exactly that — recognizing that how a food is made is just as important as what goes into it.”
That has become a key point in the effort to define UPFs – that processing plays at least some role, in addition to the ingredients used.
Non-UPF’s core, however, is a list of about 289 ingredients that would clearly make a food or beverage ultraprocessed. The A (acesulfame-potassium) to Z (zirconium compounds) list includes the usual suspects: the seven petroleum-based colors targeted by the FDA, all synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners, and all gums, thickeners and texturizers. But also most refined or processed oils and sodium-based preservatives, flavor enhancers, leavening agents, chelators, emulsifiers and functional salts (but not naturally occurring sodium).
Also prohibited are steviol glycosides and monk fruit extract — emphases on glycosides and extract, as natural versions of those two plant-based sweeteners apparently are permitted. And the standard even sets limits for acceptable levels of added sugars (from a low of 2% in meats, chips and soups to 40% for candies).
Non-UPF’s list was created from ingredients prohibited by a number of other quality standards and governmental regulations, including European Union regulations, PCC Community Markets, Whole Foods Market and applicable U.S. state legislation.
The processing component is complex; it considers biological, chemical, mechanical and thermal processing methods, and within each category sets up three levels of processing: permissible, conditional and prohibited.
For example, within that biological category, traditional fermentation is permitted and industrial fermentation (resulting in highly modified ingredients) is conditional, but prohibited are precision fermentation, biomass fermentation and enzymatic interesterification.
There’s a long list of permissible mechanical processes: cutting, high moisture extrusion, forming, homogenization, even high-pressure processing, microfiltration and ultrafiltration, and membrane and centrifugal separation. Only 3D printing is prohibited. There is a fee structure for getting certified. Then you get to use the symbol.
“Ultraprocessing is not a synonym for packaged foods, nor is it synonymous with junk foods,” Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project and now Non-UPF Verified, said in a panel discussion at the March Natural Products Expo West. “Some processing is necessary, it makes food safer.”
So, how to become less processed?
The parent Non-GMO Project created a committee of natural foods processors and debated the issue for months before creating its Non-UPF standard last fall. That group included Amy's Kitchen, Bear, Califia Farms, Caulipower, Heray Spice, Levelle Nutrition, Olyra, One Mighty Mill, Simple Mills, Spindrift and Yes Bar.
Those members already were a pretty “natural” group, and their own ingredients, processes and philosophies undoubtedly shaped the Non-UPF Project standard.
“Amy’s was founded on the belief that convenient food should be made with real ingredients, cooked as you would at home and held to a higher standard,” says Paul Schiefer, CEO of Amy’s Kitchen. “As a result, our focus hasn’t been on avoiding a label, but rather building a system where that label never has the risk of applying to us.”
Schiefer also spoke on that UPF panel at Natural Products Expo West and described Amy’s acquisition of a 500,000-sq.-ft. processing plant from one of the big food processors. The plant made macaroni & cheese dinners, and Amy’s Kitchen is using it for the same product, albeit a more natural version.
“I will say [the former owner’s] products will not meet the [Non-UPF] standard. And I can tell you why from seeing how their food was made,” he said at Expo West. “When we took this plant over, they had what they called a kitchen. It was less than 20,000 sq. ft. of space. It looked more like a pharmaceutical plant, or maybe a petrochemical refinery. Imagine a lot of pipes and steam injection and silos of powders.”
Amy’s expanded that area to 60,000 sq. ft., most of the additional space accommodating kitchen equipment, and changed its production flow from high-volume, machine-heavy processing to something akin to cooking from scratch.
Schieffer said the staff was taught to make a roux, then what essentially was a bechamel sauce. They were told to stir it, smell it, taste it. When one of the held-over employees was given a spoon, he said he had never tasted the sauce he was making in the 14 years he had worked in that plant.
“When you prioritize real cooking over engineered efficiency, the food tends to stay simpler by design, produced without relying on many of the stabilizers, artificial additives or processing shortcuts often used to compensate for highly industrialized systems,” Schieffer says.
Simple Mills, a maker of crackers, cookies, bars and baking mixes, was another member of the Non-UPF committee. Its key has been using nutrient-dense ingredients in novel ways that maximize nutrition and flavor – so there is no need for synthetic functional ingredients for enhancement.
“From day one, we set out to make food differently, by using stunningly simple ingredients that not only offer exceptional taste and texture, but provide meaningful nourishment,” says Katlin Smith, founder and CEO of Simple Mills.
“Our team has always believed in this vision and led the way in reimagining beloved foods by pioneering the use of unique, nutrient-dense nut, seed, vegetable and legume flours that make it easier for consumers to get more from their snacks.” Also by “thoughtful processing methods that help maintain nutrient-integrity … with transparency and ingredient integrity in mind.”
Most of Simple Mills’ ingredients are themselves whole-food sources: nuts, seeds, vegetables and legumes. They’re minimally processed using gentle, physical extraction methods and no harsh chemicals. The brand never uses artificial flavors, colors, preservatives or isolated gums, and only uses sweeteners like coconut sugar, molasses, honey and cane sugar. “In every product, the brand relies on the inherent properties of its ingredients to do the work,” the company says.
The Non-UPF Verification Program already has certified 236 products from 15 brands, representing 11 different categories. “We are finding that companies likely to fall into UPF classifications today are actively working to reformulate,” says Westgate.
Back to the FDA: The agency, along with USDA, did issue a request for information last summer to gather information to help establish a federally recognized uniform definition for ultraprocessed foods. The comment period ended Sept. 23, 2025.
“Creating a uniform federal definition will serve as a key deliverable on the heels of the [then] recently published Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment,” the agency said at the time, “which recognizes that the overconsumption of ultraprocessed foods is one of the driving factors of the childhood chronic disease crisis.”
-END OF MAIN STORY-
How Ultraprocessed Food Claims Differ
Comparisons made by Non-UPF Verified Program/nonultraprocessed.org
Infographic furnished by the Non-UPF Verified Progam
Without a universal or even national definition of ultraprocessed food, a handful of organizations have emerged with their own definitions, certification programs and seals.
The Non-UPF Verified program began certifying products this January. The core of its criteria is a list of 289 ingredients that make a food or beverage ultraprocessed, but it also considers biological, chemical, mechanical and thermal processing methods, and within each category sets up three levels of processing: permissible, conditional and prohibited.
While it doesn’t exist (yet), a pending California bill, AB 2244, directs the state’s Dept. of Public Health by June 1, 2028, to create a definition or set of rules for identifying UPFs and then to ban them from public schools. And as long as the Golden State is crafting a definition, it might as well create a seal for products it’s determined are not UPF, tentatively envisioned as “California Certified.”
Wisecode classifies UPFs using AI and machine learning on a dataset of over 900,000 products “with billions of attributes covering ingredients, nutrients and processing methods. It delivers UPF classifications to CPG brands, retailers, and health organizations for product intelligence, reformulation, and compliance.”
The Non-UPF Program is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Pasadena, Calif. Processors submit a product application (with the food label, ingredient list, Technical Data Sheet and processing details) and $50-175 in fees to get an “expert review” and hopefully the ability to use the organization’s seal.
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.