Yves here. It’s encouraging to witness a movement aimed at motivating action regarding the labeling of ultra-processed foods to reduce consumption. However, I find it somewhat surprising that private organizations, such as those that certify various organic products, aren’t leading the charge. A tactical approach could involve putting pressure on federal agencies by circumventing them altogether.
While my familiarity with the evolution of organic labeling and non-GMO certifications is limited, I believe health-conscious shoppers recognize that “organic” can mean different things. Some organic certifications are much stricter than others, with the FDA’s organic standards being some of the least rigorous.
The article below discusses how the definition of “ultra-processed” foods is still up for debate, with states that have established definitions disagreeing on key points. Predictably, critics express concerns that such definitions may confuse consumers and limit their options by dissuading them from certain foods. But is that really a negative outcome?
A notable example of this confusion involves whey protein. The plain variety, which is derived from milk with solids curdled out, is considered minimally processed if it simply undergoes dehydration. Yet, certain popular methods of protein extraction qualify it as ultra-processed. Even adding organic cocoa and sweetener stevia can render it ultra-processed. Another area of controversy is the presence of lead and other heavy metals like cadmium in protein powders. A recent Consumer Reports study indicated that plant-based protein powders had lower contamination levels; however, a separate analysis by Women’s Health showed otherwise. Regardless, we pointed out that a standard serving of protein (around 20-25 grams) is equivalent to approximately three glasses of milk. Growing up, milk was a regular accompaniment to each meal, yet concerns about lead levels seem not to extend to the broader American milk supply, even though such findings regarding heavy metals in whey proteins would logically suggest otherwise.
This raises the question of whether plain whey protein is truly such a good choice, given its distance from whole foods. Some budget-conscious bodybuilders argue for substituting it with whole milk yogurt instead.
The Conversation highlights a potential link between processed food and rising cancer rates among millennials—especially colorectal cancer—and increasing instances of irritable bowel syndrome. While several environmental factors might contribute, the article points to processed foods as a significant suspect.
By Brian Bienkowski, Managing Editor at The New Lede and an established reporter and editor with numerous health and environmental journalism awards. A member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, this piece was originally published at The New Lede
A coalition of food advocates, farmers, chefs, and scientists is urging the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define ultra-processed foods with a focus on public health, examining not only what is added or removed during processing but also any new health risks that may arise.
This fresh perspective on heavily processed foods—including sugary beverages, bacon, hot dogs, lunch meats, many frozen goods, and various snacks—could potentially reform the American diet from one of the least healthy to one of the healthiest globally. These products are closely associated with obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and some forms of cancer.
The existing classification of ultra-processed foods largely considers the undesirable aspects of multi-ingredient processed items. “The more additives, emulsifiers, flavor agents, colorings, and preservatives a product contains, the more likely it is classified as ultra-processed,” explained Charles Benbrook, a former research professor and past executive director of the National Academy of Sciences’ board on agriculture. Nevertheless, in a letter to the FDA last month, Benbrook and his colleagues emphasized the importance of understanding lost nutrients and new health risks associated with food processing, including pesticide residues.
“The capacity of a serving of food to either help someone achieve or maintain good health should determine its nutritional quality,” Benbrook stated.
Benbrook, along with organic farmers, nutritionists, and other scientists, signed the letter sent by the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA) and Swette Center to the FDA. This correspondence coincided with the agency, along with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), soliciting public input from July to October to create a standardized definition for ultra-processed foods. This initiative is central to the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, advocated by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who frequently cites such foods as a major contributor to childhood illnesses.
However, several food industry groups and businesses continue to oppose the need for clear definitions of ultra-processed foods, claiming it could lead to misunderstandings and unfairly target certain products. Advocates for health point out that corporate influence threatens to undermine the MAHA agenda, raising doubts about whether agencies will implement meaningful changes regarding the classification and regulation of ultra-processed foods.
“A definition will only be effective if it is integrated into actual policies,” noted Eva Greenthal, a senior policy scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which also submitted a letter to the FDA on this matter. “It’s troubling that the current administration seems focused on voluntary actions and agreements with corporations known to break their commitments.”
Classifying Processed Foods
More than half of the calories consumed by Americans at home come from ultra-processed foods, according to a 2024 study. Not every ultra-processed food poses the same health risks, but a comprehensive scientific review last year linked such foods to 32 health conditions, including obesity, mental health issues, heart disease, and poor sleep.
“Researchers are increasingly connecting the dots on how unhealthy ultra-processed foods contribute to metabolic syndromes and worrisome public health trends in the US,” Benbrook remarked.
Despite substantial evidence of their harmful effects, a universal definition of “ultra-processed” is lacking, although some states, including California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, have put forth varying definitions.
The comments made by Benbrook and his colleagues argue that not all calories are created equal. They propose determining how much beneficial nutrition remains in a product after processing; foods that retain 95% of their nutrients should be classified as “whole or lightly processed,” while those retaining 75-95% should be deemed “lightly processed,” and products with less than 75% of their nutrients should fall into the ultra-processed category.
As a next step, they recommend assessing how much ultra-processed food contributes to daily calorie intake and whether those calories offer nutrients or are empty, such as those found in sugary drinks.
“The most crucial metric the government must adopt is the percentage of nutrient needs satisfied by a serving of food, in relation to the allowable caloric intake for nutrients each day,” Benbrook insisted.
Finally, the letter also advocates for evaluating potential health risks introduced to foods through processing, such as pesticide and chemical residues or allergens, acknowledging that addressing unsafe food compounds will be one of the biggest challenges facing the FDA.
Similarly, CSPI urged the FDA to first define processed foods and subsequently the ultra-processed subcategory based on high unhealthy nutrient or calorie content, presence of processed meats and refined carbohydrates, or ingredients linked to health issues.
The organization also called for immediate policy updates before any definitions are finalized, emphasizing front-of-package nutrition labels, cancer warnings for processed meats, and sugar reduction targets for the food industry.
Greenthal mentioned that some companies have begun labeling their products as “non-UPF,” which has led to confusion and emphasizes the necessity of establishing a federal standard. “If consumers start to associate non-UPF with being healthy, it will create a perplexing environment for them,” she stated.
Donald Davis, a nutrition scientist retired from the University of Texas and co-signer of the HHRA letter to the FDA, expressed hope that the agency won’t get bogged down in complexities while defining ultra-processed foods and will prioritize healthier diets.
“There’s no need for 50 pages on this issue… We’ve known since 1973 that Americans consume, on average, about half their calories from non-whole foods, like refined sugars, milled grains, and fats extracted from their original sources,” he commented.
“Not a Consistent or Reliable Proxy”
The National Pork Producers Council argued that defining ultra-processed foods could mistakenly classify nutrient-rich products as ultra-processed merely because of their processing methods. They pointed out that pork products, which often contain preservatives to inhibit foodborne pathogens, could be wrongly labeled and thereby deprive Americans of nutrient-dense foods.
Roberta Wagner, the senior vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs for the International Dairy Foods Association, expressed that establishing a definition for ultra-processed foods is “premature,” considering the inconsistent scientific evidence surrounding its health impacts. “High-quality, safe American dairy products are made with milk sourced from US dairy farms,” she stated in a statement. “If the federal government labels these dairy products as ‘ultra-processed’ or ‘highly processed’ without a solid scientific foundation or consensus, it will confuse consumers and impede policymakers while also reducing the intake of nutrient-rich dairy.”
Previous MAHA Flip-Flops
While health advocates hope that addressing ultra-processed foods remains a priority for the FDA and USDA, both Benbrook and Greenthal noted previous inconsistencies within the MAHA Commission and their potential effects on future FDA actions. The latest MAHA Commission report from September was noticeably more accommodating to corporate interests compared to an earlier version released in May, omitting previous references to harmful pesticides such as glyphosate and atrazine.
Last summer, several food industry representatives, including those from the National Pork Producers Council and International Dairy Foods Association, participated in a White House meeting and indicated their desire to engage as the FDA formulates an ultra-processed food definition.
Benbrook expects movement on defining ultra-processed foods to appease many MAHA supporters. “MAHA leadership in Washington must address ultra-processed foods because they have notably neglected the issues concerning pesticides and other chemicals in our food supply,” he remarked. “This marks the beginning of a revitalization within the food community.”
