13/03/2026
The US government is working on a formal definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) which is something that could influence nutrition policy, food labelling and public health messaging.
At the moment most research uses the NOVA classification system, which groups foods according to how processed they are rather than just their nutrient content. That framework has been hugely influential in research, but it was never really designed to function as a regulatory definition.
Turning a research concept into policy is where things get a little tricky.
Once you start drawing lines around what counts as an ultra-processed food, the grey areas appear quickly. Foods like baked beans, fortified breakfast cereals or fortified plant milks can technically fall into the ultra-processed category, but they may still provide fibre, protein or useful micronutrients.
So the real question is how that definition will be used.
Could it shape food labelling systems, school food standards or marketing restrictions? Probably, but policymakers also need to be careful that any definition doesn’t oversimplify the reality of how people eat.
Another interesting angle in this debate is that some researchers have suggested flipping the problem on its head so instead of defining ultra-processed foods, start by defining what counts as minimally processed foods, and work outward from there.
The wider conversation here isn’t just about processing. It’s about diet quality, food environments and how modern diets are structured.
For most people, improving health still comes down to pretty simple principles of
eating more whole foods, cooking when possible and building meals around nutrient-dense ingredients.
As this debate evolves, it will be interesting to see whether ultra-processed foods become a formal part of nutrition policy.
Curious to hear your thoughts….should nutrition advice focus on avoiding ultra-processed foods, or is it more helpful to focus on overall diet quality and dietary patterns?