Healthy Eating Research report urges nuanced approach to ultra-processed foods, distinguishing plant-based products from processed meat

A new report from Healthy Eating Research has highlighted major differences in the health impacts of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), arguing that policymakers should distinguish between harmful processed products and healthier plant-based options as the US government moves toward a formal definition of the category.

• Healthy Eating Research released a report recommending that “healthy” ultra-processed foods be exempt from policies designed to discourage UPF consumption.
• The report stated that plant-based UPFs such as breads, cereals, and meat alternatives showed beneficial or neutral health effects, unlike processed meat and sugary drinks.
• The findings arrived as the FDA and USDA continued work on a formal UPF definition that could shape future taxation, advertising, and school meal policies.

The report arrived at a pivotal moment for food policy in the USA, with the Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture currently developing a formal definition for ultra-processed foods. That definition is expected to influence future regulations around food taxation, advertising restrictions, and eligibility for government-backed meal programs including the National School Lunch Program.

According to the 14-member committee behind the report, current public discussions around UPFs often fail to recognize the significant nutritional differences between food categories grouped under the same label.

Noah Praamsma, a registered dietitian with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said public messaging around processed foods had become overly simplistic. “Many people have been told to avoid processed foods, but the science is clearly telling us that we need to be more nuanced,” he said. “Processed meat like bacon, hot dogs, and deli meat should absolutely be avoided, but many plant-based foods that are considered ultra-processed, like breads, cereals, and meat alternatives are actually good for your health.”

The report argued that plant-based foods classified as ultra-processed often demonstrated beneficial health outcomes, while animal-based UPFs and sugary beverages were consistently linked to negative effects.

Praamsma said the distinction was important as regulators considered future policy measures. “We need policies informed by science, not ideology, and that are robust enough to actually promote beneficial food and discourage unhealthy foods,” he said.

The debate around UPFs has intensified globally over the past several years, with researchers, policymakers, and advocacy groups increasingly scrutinizing industrial food production and ingredient formulations. However, scientists have also warned that the broad UPF category may oversimplify nutritional realities by grouping together products with vastly different compositions and health outcomes.

The Healthy Eating Research report cited recent findings from Harvard researchers showing that sugary and artificially sweetened beverages, along with processed meats, were associated with an increased risk of heart disease. By contrast, foods including bread, breakfast cereals, and some savory snacks showed beneficial associations.

The report also referenced evidence linking plant-based meat alternatives, breads, and cereals to a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes compared with processed meat and sugary drinks, which were associated with increased risks of both diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

To help policymakers differentiate between healthier and less healthy UPFs, the committee proposed several criteria for exemption from restrictive policies. According to the report, foods should qualify if they contain meaningful amounts of recommended food groups, stay below thresholds for sodium, saturated fat, and added sugar, and do not contain non-sugar sweeteners.

The recommendations reflected a broader shift within nutrition science toward evaluating foods based on their nutritional profile and demonstrated health outcomes, rather than processing level alone.

The report aligned with a growing body of scientific opinion challenging the idea that all UPFs should be treated equally. In August 2025, the American Heart Association acknowledged that “not all UPFs are junk foods or have poor nutritional quality; some UPFs have better nutritional value and can be part of an overall healthy dietary pattern”.

That distinction could prove particularly significant for the plant-based food sector, where many products rely on processing technologies to achieve desired texture, flavor, shelf life, or nutritional functionality. Plant-based meat alternatives, fortified cereals, and other reformulated products are frequently classified as ultra-processed under existing frameworks despite often being designed to reduce saturated fat intake or replace animal-derived ingredients.

The federal definition currently under development by the FDA and USDA is expected to play a central role in determining how such foods are regulated in the future. Proposed policies linked to UPFs have included warning labels, restrictions on marketing to children, taxes on certain products, and limitations within publicly funded meal programs.

The Healthy Eating Research committee argued that a blanket approach risked discouraging consumption of foods that could support healthier dietary patterns, particularly among consumers seeking affordable and accessible plant-based options.

The report did not dispute evidence connecting some ultra-processed products to poor health outcomes. Instead, it emphasized the need for more precise distinctions between food subgroups, particularly as scientific evidence continues to evolve.

For companies developing plant-based protein products, the findings may offer support against increasingly broad criticism of processed foods. The report suggested that focusing solely on the degree of processing could overlook meaningful differences in nutritional quality and public health impact.

As regulators continue to refine their definition of UPFs, the debate is likely to remain central to discussions around food innovation, nutrition policy, and the future role of plant-based products in public health strategies.