US moves closer to defining ultra-processed foods amid policy push to curb diet-related health risks

Healthy Eating Research advocates for a clear federal definition of ultra-processed foods to guide policies addressing rising diet-related diseases, as government reviews proposals to regulate these products more effectively amid industry resistance.

Healthy Eating Research has urged federal agencies to adopt a clear, policy-ready definition of ultra-processed foods as Washington moves closer to setting a national standard. The group said a workable definition is needed if policymakers want to restrict products that are linked with poorer diets and rising rates of disease, while still allowing room for processed foods that can fit into a healthy eating pattern.

The timing matters. According to a recent HHS announcement, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture have already submitted the first federal definition of ultra-processed foods for final review after collecting views from thousands of stakeholders, including industry, consumer groups, researchers and members of the public. HHS did not disclose the proposed language, but the move signals that a long-running scientific debate is edging towards federal policy.

In its report, Healthy Eating Research defines ultra-processed foods as products containing at least one cosmetic additive designed to improve taste or one non-culinary ingredient not normally found in a home kitchen, such as high-fructose corn syrup. The panel anchored its approach in the Nova classification system, developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo in Brazil. Jim Krieger, the panel co-chair and executive director of Healthy Food America, said Nova is useful for research but too cumbersome on its own for rule-making, so the group proposes a more operational definition based on ingredient markers that agencies could update as the food supply changes.

The report says ultra-processed foods already make up more than half of the calories consumed in the United States, among the highest levels in the world. It cites studies published in The BMJ and the British Journal of Nutrition linking heavy consumption of these foods with a greater risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity and mental health disorders. Dariush Mozaffarian, a panel member and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, said the dominance of ultra-processed foods is a major driver of diet-related illness. The report also notes that the USDA has previously explored whether some ultra-processed foods can be part of a healthy diet, showing how the category can vary widely in nutritional quality.

To turn the definition into action, the panel set out five federal policy ideas. These include targeted taxes on certain ultra-processed products, such as sugar-sweetened drinks and processed meats, rather than a blanket levy that could hit low-income households hardest. Emily Broad Leib, who leads the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, said any price measure should be paired with better access to affordable minimally processed foods so that food insecurity is not worsened. The report also calls for tighter federal purchasing rules in schools, early years settings, hospitals and prisons, as well as counter-marketing campaigns modelled on anti-tobacco efforts, a specific upper limit in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and front-of-pack labelling to make ultra-processed products easier to spot.

The researchers argue that clearer labelling and stronger public procurement rules could help shift consumption patterns without forcing households to abandon all processed foods. But they also warn that any federal crackdown is likely to face fierce resistance from manufacturers. Krieger told Food Tank that industry lobbying against regulation is already strong, underscoring the political challenge ahead even as the scientific case for action gains ground.