In August Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., took the stage at the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington, D.C., and announced what would be a first for the U.S. government: an upcoming formal definition of “ultraprocessed foods.” The reason for defining the term, Kennedy said, was to help bring healthier food options to Americans. But Kennedy held back sharing what, exactly, the definition would be.
Processed foods have been a target for Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Some scientists and health organizations, including the American Heart Association, support a federal definition, too. But a consensus definition on ultraprocessed foods has been notoriously difficult to reach.
The lack of a clear definition can create “ambiguity” in how to enforce or monitor food regulations, says Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It can leave manufacturers and retailers confused,” in addition to consumers.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Now, more than two months later, the federal effort to define ultraprocessed foods has reportedly stalled. According to Bloomberg Law and the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy’s plan was met with a wave of pushback from the food industry and the White House because of concerns about the legal ramifications of such a definition.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ultraprocessed foods make up some 55 percent of the average American’s daily calories—the percentage is even higher among young people aged one to 18. Researchers say defining these foods would make it easier for the government to limit ultraprocessed foods in school lunches, for example, or to put labels on food packaging to better inform consumers about what they are eating.
That matters, because evidence suggests ultraprocessed foods are bad for us: they are linked to the risk of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as worse mental health outcomes. But it’s unclear whether these ill effects are entirely linked to the foods’ ingredients or nutritional value, the way in which they were processed or something else.
Ultraprocessed foods may also be addictive and tend to be convenient, portable and heavily marketed to children, Taillie says.
We asked the experts what they consider to be ultraprocessed foods, why these foods are often considered “unhealthy” and why it’s so hard to agree on a definition—on the federal level and in the field.
How do scientists define ultraprocessed foods?
Imagine an ultraprocessed food: whatever you are thinking of, you are probably right on the money, says Marion Nestle, a nutrition expert and a professor emerita at New York University.
“In my experience, consumers ‘get’ the concept easily, so easily that they start avoiding them,” Nestle says.
To Nestle, ultraprocessed foods are those that are “industrially produced, designed to be irresistible, if not addictive, and are usually formulated with lots of sugar, salt, and flavor, color and texture additives.”
“An operating definition is ‘you can’t make them in your home kitchen,’” she adds.
“If you think about what a lot of these ultraprocessed foods are, they are designed for consumption,” says Matthew Landry, an assistant professor of global health and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Irvine. They might come in textures and flavors designed to keep us snacking.
Some scientists have sought to categorize processed foods with tools, such as the NOVA food classification system.
Under this system, foods are sorted into four categories: Group 1 includes unprocessed and minimally processed food, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, legumes and meat. Group 2 includes “culinary ingredients,” such as salt, sugar and fats. Group 3 includes processed foods that are canned or fermented, such as cheese. The fourth group represents ultraprocessed foods and is comprised of items that have undergone “extensive chemical or physical processing,” Taillie says.
Foods in this fourth category are typically high in added sugar, sodium, and saturated fats and may include artificial ingredients such as flavors, colors or emulsifiers, Taillie says. Chips, candies and frozen meals might fall under Group 4.
Where things get tricky are the edge cases: What category should a flavored yogurt fall under? What about granola bars or tofu?
NOVA only classifies foods based on processing levels, not nutritional value. Other classification systems, such as one called FPro, attempt to take nutritional information into account. But scientists haven’t agreed on one shared system.
Why is it so hard to come up with a consensus definition?
There are several reasons. For one, companies aren’t required to disclose how a food product was processed on its label, Taillie says. Using other sources of information—such as ingredients lists—can serve somewhat as a proxy, she says. For example, if a product’s ingredients include added colors, sweeteners, thickeners or chemical names that you don’t recognize, then it’s probably ultraprocessed.
Complicating matters further is that, as with any food classification system, drawing a line between what is “processed” and what is not is somewhat arbitrary, Taillie says.
“You have to set a threshold somewhere, which means that there are going to be some products that are captured that people will look at and inherently feel that should not be captured, or vice versa,” she says.
Under systems such as the NOVA scale, foods that experts might consider beneficial to our health, such as some yogurt, could be categorized alongside less healthy ones. In a July journal article, for instance, Landry and a co-author argued that ultraprocessed, plant-based meat alternatives such as soy burgers can act as a “gateway” to eating whole, plant proteins, such as beans or lentils. In turn, making a clear definition for foods that are processed but have other “redeeming nutritional qualities” is challenging, Landry says.
There’s also a layer of complexity when considering how a definition may be used. Not everyone has access to whole foods—people who are food-insecure, for instance, might rely on shelf-stable foods, such as frozen meals. Landry argues that any federal action to define ultraprocessed foods should take that into account.
And then there’s opposition from the food industry, which has “absolutely” been a roadblock, Nestle says. Food companies’ antagonism toward reaching a consensus definition has been “strong and well coordinated,” Taillie agrees, with actions that have included lobbying at the state and federal level.
“These are among the most profitable products on the market,” Nestle adds.
If you’re interested in cutting down on ultraprocessed foods, there are benefits to doing so. But there’s no need to sweat over a single cupcake or cup of instant noodles, experts say.
“As a consumer, I’m not too worried about whether this slice of bread that I have in the morning is ultraprocessed or not,” Taillie says. “I’m really looking at the course of the entire day. How many foods am I consuming that might fit into that criteria?”
