Feds Moving Toward Defining Ultraprocessed Foods
There are signs the federal government is moving forward with plans to develop a definition of ultraprocessed foods, apparently as the first step in discouraging their use or restricting them from federally funded nutrition programs.
Labeling them, or at least providing a label for foods that don't contain them, but not banning them.
A June 10 New York Times article provided an update, with FDA officials indicating they were closing in on a definition. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said he expected the definition would encourage companies to label foods as “non-ultraprocessed” to entice customers, similar to how food manufacturers market their products as being free from added sugars.
“We do not see ultraprocessed foods as foods to be banned,” Makary said in the Times story. “We see them as foods to be defined so that markets can compete based on health.”
We took a deep dive into the subject of ultraprocessed foods in a feature story "Ultraprocessed or Not? The Answers Aren’t Yet Clear."
You also might like this guest column, "Ultraprocessed Foods: What Are We Even Talking About?" by a Keller & Heckman attorney.
Kyle Diamantas, deputy commissioner of the FDA’s Human Foods Program, told the Times there were some “obvious areas” the agency would consider when crafting its definition, including synthetic dyes, emulsifiers and preservatives.
“Nutrition researchers generally define ultraprocessed foods [UPFs] as industrially manufactured products that include ingredients you wouldn’t find in your own kitchen, like high-fructose corn syrup or hydrogenated oils,” the article said. “The products also often contain artificial flavors, sweeteners and emulsifiers that make them appealing to consumers and can give them a longer shelf life.”
The article theorized that UPFs could be defined by certain chemicals or additives, the number of ingredients in a product or its overall nutritional content. That description could then be used to shape school lunch policy, regulate the foods available through federal services like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or make recommendations about limiting ultraprocessed food consumption in the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
While the FDA is leading the effort, USDA and other federal agencies are involved, and there undoubtedly will be a public comment period before setting a definition in the coming months.
The Times also quoted nutrition professor Marion Nestle as saying any definition the government comes up with would be “hotly contested” by the food industry. The full Times story is here, although a subscription may be required.
On May 22, the MAHA Report (Make America Healthy Again) released by Health & Human Services shone quite a bit of light on UPFs as the cause of an unhealthy America. It was intentionally light on solutions, with those promised in a follow-up report coming in August.
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.