On October 23, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) closed their public comment period on how to define ultra-processed foods (UPF). ICYMI, check out our prior overview of this initiative and why it matters.
Global Food IQ combed through a handful of the 5,000+ comment letters available on the docket to get a sense of where the agencies may land. Spoiler alert: it’s complicated. Unsurprisingly, commenters were divided on whether “UPF” should even be defined for regulatory purposes, with industry representatives largely discouraging the idea. Regardless of whether respondents took a “pro” or “anti” position, their reasoning and recommendations varied widely – so much so that proposing a unified definition may not yet be possible.
Below are deeper insights and themes from the comments we reviewed, reflecting views from industry, professional societies, consumers, and scientific and advocacy organizations. Send us a note if you’d like a more detailed and customized report with actionable recommendations for your organization.
- One thing almost everyone can agree on: not all processed foods are created equal. Commenters across sectors argued that some differentiation is needed in any “UPF” definition so that nutrient-dense processed foods are treated fairly and distinctly from less healthful, calorie-dense choices.
- Recurring perspectives from UPF definition proponents included:
-
- The evidence linking UPF to negative health outcomes is sufficient, and the state of chronic disease in the U.S. warrants immediate action.
- Consumers are confused about and interested in limiting UPF consumption, and a regulatory definition would help them build healthier diets.
- Foods that warrant a UPF focus include processed meat, processed refined carbohydrates including sugar-sweetened beverages, “empty calorie” options, and foods containing ingredients with strong connections to cancer or other health concerns.
- The NOVA system, or elements of it, could form the basis of a regulatory definition.
-
- Recurring perspectives from UPF definition opponents included:
-
- Available scientific evidence is not available nor strong enough to demonstrate a causal relationship between UPF foods or ingredients and health. Therefore, policy or regulatory action is premature.
- Available science supports a relationship between nutrition (i.e., nutrients, dietary patterns) and health, and processing is not an appropriate proxy for foods’ impact on health.
- NOVA and other existing definitions or classification systems are limited and inappropriate for use in a regulatory definition.
- Processed foods convey important benefits that any definition should not overlook, such as promoting food safety, shelf life, food security, and nutrition.
-
- Multiple professional societies generally supported establishing a UPF definition but recognized limitations in current systems and the evidence base. Some suggested the agencies implement a phased approach that begins by emphasizing nutrition (as supported by current evidence) and potentially expands to ingredients and processing methods in the future.
- There is evidence to suggest an organized, grassroots consumer response in support of creating a definition. Many submissions from single individuals used a form letter, which supported a) establishing a uniform UPF definition; b) using the NOVA system; c) separating risk assessment from risk management, similar to the European approach; and d) implementing front-of-pack warning labels and school restrictions for UPF.
- Few comments offered FDA and USDA tangible solutions or clear paths forward. Letters that offered concrete guidance referenced existing principles, suggested looser frameworks or guardrails, or advised the agencies to use existing Dietary Reference Values and claims definitions to guide nutrient thresholds. A limited number of commenters responded to all questions included in the Request for Information, if they directly answered them at all. Ultimately, this suggests that the agencies may not receive their desired level of detail and direction.
Will we eventually see a proposed rule or official federal guidance for “UPF?” Maybe not in the immediate future, but as U.S. states continue to advance their own legislative measures, and labeling opportunities emerge, it feels like national intervention will be necessary at some point. Global Food IQ will continue to monitor and assess the situation.
