A recent report from Healthy Eating Research (HER) recommends a new definition for ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to create effective food policy. They also highlight policy opportunities to limit their consumption. The panel hoped the report can aid federal agencies as they work toward an official UPF definition.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently submitted the first federal definition of UPFs for final review after considering input from “thousands of stakeholders, including industry, consumer organizations, researchers, and members of the public,” according to a press release from HHS. It did not provide the proposed definition.
The HER report considers UPFs as products with at least one cosmetic additive to increase palatability or ingredient of non-culinary use not found in a home kitchen, like high fructose corn syrup.
The panel’s definition is based on the Nova food classification system, developed by researchers at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil. While the Nova system provides a comprehensive framework for studying UPFs in a research setting, it is difficult to employ operationally for policymaking, explains Jim Krieger, the panel co-chair and Executive Director of Healthy Food America.
By creating a policy-oriented definition, government agencies can easily and consistently identify UPFs by referencing a comprehensive list of UPF ingredient markers. The report suggests that a federal agency should monitor the constantly changing food supply and update the list with additional ingredients regularly. Used alongside existing food evaluation measures, these approaches account for a product’s level of processing, nutrient content, and ingredients.
UPFs are typically processed foods with several ingredients, such as sodas, candy, flavored chips, and breakfast cereals, designed to be shelf-stable, sensorily appealing, marketable, and convenient. More than half of the calories that Americans consume come from UPFs– one of the highest levels of consumption in the world, according to the report.
“Americans face an unprecedented burden of diet-related disease, and the dominance of ultra-processed foods is a major contributor,” Dariush Mozaffarian, HER panel member and Director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, tells Food Tank.
Studies including those published in The BMJ and the British Journal of Nutrition, link UPF consumption with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and mental health disorders. These findings have raised concerns among policymakers and government agencies, including the current administration, according to the report.
Using their definition, the panel recommends five policies that it believes are likely to be implemented by the federal government and effective in reducing UPF consumption in America. “The goal is not to eliminate all processed foods, but to shift the food system toward healthier formulations and defaults that make it easier, not harder, for people to eat well,” says Mozaffarian.
Their first recommendation is to tax select UPFs to increase their retail price and reduce their sales and consumption. Products would be chosen based on studies linking them to negative health outcomes, including sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats.
The panelists do not recommend taxing all UPFs, as it would disproportionately affect low-income consumers. They suggest that UPF tax revenues be invested into programming that benefits those disproportionately affected by them, such as healthy eating programs.
“If we raise prices on these products without simultaneously improving access to affordable, minimally processed foods, we risk worsening food insecurity,” Emily Broad Leib, panel member and Director of the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, tells Food Tank.
The report also calls on the government to restrict the procurement of UPFs in institutional settings, including schools, early childhood education centers, hospitals, and jails.
Another policy recommendation aims to decrease demand for UPFs through funding counter marketing campaigns. Companies that produce UPFs heavily market their products, especially towards children. The panelists argue counter marketing campaigns can educate the public about the health risks of UPFs and point to the Truth Initiative anti-tobacco campaign as a model.
The report also proposes the inclusion of a limit on UPF intake within the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). While the 2025-2030 DGA suggests limiting highly processed foods, future guidelines should outline a specific upper limit.
UPF labels on the front of food packages can also be useful, the panel says. By indicating a product is ultra-processed, it may deter eaters from buying it. They acknowledge, however, that these might amplify health disparities among non-English speakers who have more trouble understanding the label. Dr. Krieger suggests that bilingual labeling may mitigate this issue.
The panel believes that the government’s attempt to regulate UPF consumption will positively impact public health. But they expect pushback from manufacturers. “Industry has a lot of influence on this administration… and they are totally geared up and lobbying hard against anything to regulate UPFs,” Dr. Krieger tells Food Tank.
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of Osarugue Igbinoba, Unsplash
