Health and nutrition advocates, researchers call for government to define and regulate ultra-processed foods

The Center for Science in the Public Interest today submitted comments in response to the federal government’s Request for Information (RFI) about how to define the term “ultra-processed food” (UPF).

“The policy goal of defining UPF should be to identify the set of processed foods that scientific evidence shows are clearly linked to health concerns so that government policies can assist people with limiting those foods in their diets,” CSPI told the Food and Drug Administration in its comment.

The nonprofit nutrition and food safety watchdog group recommends defining UPF as processed foods with any of six characteristics: high unhealthy nutrient density (i.e., excess sugar, sodium, or saturated fat), high calorie density, processed meat, sweetened beverages, processed refined carbohydrates, and ingredients strongly linked to cancer or other serious health concerns (such as those on CSPI’s Chemical Cuisine “Avoid” list). These characteristics have been linked to a wide range of adverse health outcomes including weight gain, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

CSPI’s comment also recommends that the government consider defining an alternative term like “harmful processed food,” noting that the term “ultra-processed” implies “very” or “extremely” processed, but since the extent, type, or purpose of processing does not necessarily relate to whether or not a food presents health risks, the term is imprecise for describing processed foods linked to health concerns.

The RFI was issued by the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has cited ultra-processed foods as a main driver of America’s chronic disease epidemic. CSPI opposed Kennedy’s nomination and has called for his firing due to a wide range of actions including sowing vaccine mistrust, compromising vaccine access, and imposing reckless agency cuts that jeopardize Americans’ health. However, addressing the harms of UPFs is a rare area of agreement between Kennedy and members of the public health community who, in today’s comment, applaud the federal effort to define UPF for regulatory purposes.

The comment from CSPI includes recommendations for regulating UPF, stating: “Once the agencies finalize their definition, the government should explore taxes, marketing restrictions, warning labels, and federal procurement restrictions on certain UPF. Such policies must be considered with a focus on protecting vulnerable groups, such as children, without exacerbating food insecurity, poverty, and inequality; must be accompanied by sufficient resources and technical assistance; and must be implemented with adequate lead time, to facilitate successful implementation.”

CSPI's comment also includes a list of policy actions that FDA and USDA can take to address harmful processed foods even before finalizing a new uniform definition of UPF, such as issuing a final rule on mandatory front-of-package nutrition labeling and overhauling the food chemical regulatory system by closing the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) loophole. Both of these actions appear in the Trump Administration’s newly released regulatory agenda, and were recommended by the MAHA Commission in its recent Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy Report. But the administration has otherwise expressed an aversion to adopting new regulations. Instead, Trump health officials appear to favor public education campaigns and voluntary industry actions.

CSPI also joined 31 other public health and nutrition organizations and 52 individual researchers and advocates in filing a joint comment in response to the RFI. “The evidence base is more than sufficient for regulatory action on UPFs that are harmful to health,” according to the signatories. “A new regulatory definition will lay the groundwork for policies that could comprehensively improve diet quality and related health outcomes.”

The recent Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy Report promises nothing on UPF beyond acknowledging the current effort to define the term and indicating plans for the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans to recommend putting “Real Food First” and to “Prioritize whole, minimally processed foods over packaged and highly processed alternatives.”

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary has suggested that the new UPF definition will encourage companies to label foods with “Non-UPF” marketing claims. CSPI advises that mandatory policies are usually the best way to ensure changes to the food supply are durable and provide maximum benefit to consumers. CSPI further cautions that voluntary “Non-UPF” claims alone are grossly inadequate for addressing the risks posed by harmful UPF and could result in consumer confusion.

“Assuming the government adopts a strong, evidence-based definition of UPF that captures processed foods clearly linked to health concerns, the new definition will lay the groundwork for policies that could comprehensively improve diet quality and related health outcomes,” said CSPI senior policy scientist Eva Greenthal. “But a definition gets us nowhere unless it’s incorporated into policy. Secretary Kennedy talks a good game when it comes to sticking it to Big Food, but it remains to be seen whether he's up to the task of regulating the industry he claims is poisoning American children.”

# # #