FDA moves toward defining ‘ultraprocessed’: a key step that could reshape US food policy

The US Food and Drug Administration is working on a formal definition of ultraprocessed food – a move that could have sweeping implications for school meals, federal food assistance programs, and industry labeling practices. The plan, first reported by The New York Times on 10 June, was confirmed by FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary, who said the goal is to bring clarity to a term that is increasingly shaping both public opinion and scientific research.

“We do not see ultraprocessed foods as foods to be banned,” Makary told The New York Times. “We see them as foods to be defined so that markets can compete based on health.”

The FDA is developing the definition in collaboration with the US Department of Agriculture and other agencies. Public comment will be invited in the coming months. Once finalized, the definition could influence the types of products allowed in school cafeterias, prisons, Veterans Affairs hospitals, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Ultraprocessed foods are broadly understood by researchers as industrially manufactured products that contain ingredients uncommon in home kitchens, such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners, synthetic emulsifiers, or preservatives. While these ingredients improve shelf life, flavor, and texture, they have also been linked to a range of negative health outcomes – including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and gastrointestinal issues.

Kyle Diamantas, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA’s food division, told The New York Times the agency would look closely at factors like synthetic dyes and stabilizers. “We don’t have in our home kitchens these new novel ingredients that help a Twinkie stay on the shelf for six years or whatever it might be,” he said.

Critics have warned that a narrowly focused definition could fall short. In Arizona, for example, a recent policy classified ultraprocessed foods only by their additive content, which may exclude sugary products that don't use specific colorings or preservatives. Brenda Davy, a nutrition professor at Virginia Tech, told The Times that a definition focused solely on additives might miss the bigger picture. “If their focus is too narrow, it may be limited in how much that might improve health,” she said.

The discussion also touches on how foods like plant-based meats, protein shakes, and flavored yogurts should be categorized. Some experts argue that not all ultraprocessed foods are equally harmful and that certain products – such as fortified cereals or whole-grain breads – may still offer nutritional value. Maya Vadiveloo, associate professor of nutrition at the University of Rhode Island, cautioned against “demonizing” products that may not be inherently unhealthy.

Nonetheless, public health advocates see a clear federal definition as a foundational step. Marion Nestle, emerita professor of nutrition and public health at New York University, told The New York Times that such a move could lead to front-of-pack warning labels or new advertising restrictions, particularly around marketing to children.

“All of those are up for grabs if there’s a definition,” Nestle said. “It matters a lot.”