How stakeholder feedback might shape a federal definition of ultra-processed foods

The Trump administration has signaled that a federal definition of ultra-processed foods will be issued this spring. Here, AgencyIQ analyzes public comments on the FDA and USDA’s request for information to identify UPF themes, recommendations and possible frameworks offered by food stakeholders.

By Salem Scarlett, MS, MPH and Jared Rothstein | Mar 20, 2026 4:08 PM EDT

Quick background on ultra-processed foods

Ultra-processed food has emerged as a topic of public health concern. UPFs are generally described as foods that undergo a high degree of industrial processing, contain a significant number of additives and have high levels of nutrients of concern such as saturated fat, sodium and added sugar. Other characteristics often cited in public discourse, policymaking and research are that UPFs have a long shelf life and high energy density and are ready to eat and highly palatable. Acknowledging limitations and evidence gaps, research has found associations between UPFs and obesity and diet-related disease. However, documented associations often depend on the UPF subgroups being evaluated, with sweetened drinks, processed meats and ready-to-eat meals linked to higher health risks, while cereals, whole grain breads and yogurt are associated with beneficial health outcomes.
Currently, there is not a uniform approach for defining UPFs. The most frequently cited scientific approach for defining UPFs, particularly for nutrition research, relies upon the NOVA classification system, which categorizes foods based on the extent and purpose of their industrial processing. Other scientific approaches focus on the presence of additives, ingredient lists, nutritional quality and other markers. Some classification methods also attempt to quantitatively score foods based on these cumulative factors. [Read AgencyIQ’s analysis of current approaches for defining UPFs here.]
Federal regulators have taken steps to establish a uniform definition. On July 25, 2025, the FDA and USDA issued a joint request for information seeking input on factors and criteria that should inform a standardized federal definition. The agencies wrote in their accompanying press release that a clear definition established by the federal government is “a critical step in providing increased transparency to consumers about the foods they eat” and will inform research and policy activities “to pave the way for addressing health concerns associated with the consumption of ultra-processed foods.” The comment period for the RFI closed on Oct. 23. [Read AgencyIQ’s analysis of the FDA and USDA’s request for information on UPFs here.]
Stakeholder feedback from the RFI will likely shape and influence the FDA and USDA’s proposal. AgencyIQ took a deep dive into the 5,000-plus comments in the regulations.gov public docket to identify common themes, recommendations and points of interest across stakeholders and interest groups. Those takeaways are summarized below.

Key theme from stakeholder feedback: Disagreement over using NOVA as the foundation

One of the clearest divides in the docket was whether the NOVA classification system should serve as the basis for a federal UPF definition. Some public health and consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation of America, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, and Tufts University’s Food is Medicine Institute, argued that NOVA should form the foundation because it underpins much of the existing research and provides a common framework for research and communication. The Consumer Federation of America wrote that “research on diet-related disease outcomes fairly equates the term ‘ultra processed food’ with the Nova classification system.” These commenters stated that adopting NOVA would allow regulators, researchers and clinicians to operate from a shared baseline rather than creating a new definition that could fragment the evidence base.
However, many other stakeholders cautioned that NOVA may not be suitable for regulatory use. Groups including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, School Nutrition Association, U.K. Department of Health and Social Care, New York City’s Health Department, and several food science and industry organizations said the framework is too broad, subjective and difficult to operationalize using current labeling systems. These commenters wrote that NOVA groups foods with very different nutritional profiles into the same category and relies on processing information that is often not available to regulators or consumers. Several also said its application could lead to inconsistent classification outcomes across studies and policy contexts. The Academy wrote, “Defining UPFs remains a challenge due to limited evidence identifying specific aspects of UPFs that may be responsible for adverse health effects.”

Broad support for incorporating nutrient criteria

Across stakeholder groups, many commenters emphasized that nutrient composition should play a central role in any UPF definition. Researchers at the NIH stated that adverse health associations were primarily driven by UPFs high in nutrients of concern, while other UPFs showed neutral or even protective associations. They suggested that regulatory approaches should focus on lower-nutritional-quality UPFs rather than the full category. They presented their findings at a conference in June 2025. A draft of the manuscript reporting these results has been posted to a preprint server, and the paper is currently under peer review, according to the NIH’s comment. “Our findings support an approach that classifies foods based on both processing and nutritional quality, such that only ultra-processed foods of low nutritional quality are subject to regulations or other efforts to reduce their intake,” the researchers wrote.
Similarly, groups including the Environmental Working Group, School Nutrition Association, Dairy Council of California and Plant Based Foods Association wrote that relying solely on processing could misclassify nutrient-dense foods. As the Dairy Council of California put it, “Not all processed foods are created equal, and some are shown to be beneficial to health.” Frequently cited examples include yogurt, whole grain breads and cereals, fortified foods, and plant-based alternatives that may be categorized as UPFs but still align with dietary recommendations.
Many commenters also pointed out that foods commonly categorized as UPFs often overlap with those already identified in nutrition policy as high in fat, sugar or salt. This overlap led some to say that existing nutrient-based frameworks may already capture the foods most associated with health risks. However, there was little consensus on how nutrient criteria should be incorporated. Some groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, recommended specific thresholds based on models used in Chile or by the Pan American Health Organization, while others urged alignment with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans without adopting new numeric cutoffs.
At the same time, a smaller group of commenters cautioned against incorporating nutrient criteria at all, arguing that doing so could undermine the purpose of a processing-based definition and allow reformulated products to meet thresholds while remaining highly processed. “The use of nutrient criteria provides a loophole to industry, who will create new ‘Franken-food’ UPF that meet the nutrient thresholds but have little nourishing value,” the Food is Medicine Institute wrote. “This has been clearly seen, for example, in school meals, which meet USDA nutrient criteria but are too often UPF contributing to the epidemic of chronic disease in American children.”

Concerns about unintended consequences for nutrition programs and access

Many commenters warned that a broad UPF definition could have unintended consequences if applied to food assistance programs, school meals or specialized nutrition products. Health care nutrition and infant formula groups said products such as medical foods, infant formula and oral nutrition supplements are intentionally formulated to meet specific medical or life-stage needs. As these groups wrote, such products are “intentionally formulated and processed to provide nutrition in a form that is tailored to the consumer’s or patient’s specific dietary needs and/or health condition.”
School nutrition stakeholders raised similar concerns, noting that some processed or prepared foods are operationally necessary in K-12 settings because of constraints related to staffing, equipment and cost. They warned that misclassifying these foods could reduce menu options or increase costs for school meal programs.
Produce stakeholders also warned that minimal processing used to preserve fruits and vegetables could inadvertently trigger UPF classification. They said practices such as washing, coating or packaging are used to maintain freshness and reduce waste but could be misunderstood or misclassified under a processing-based definition.
Several commenters also articulated broader concerns about food access, affordability and equity, noting that overly restrictive definitions could limit availability of affordable and shelf-stable foods for vulnerable populations. The International Fresh Produce Association urged the FDA and USDA not to classify “value-added fruits and vegetables,” such as bagged lettuce or sliced apples, “as processed simply because they undergo minimal handling that can improve fruit and vegetable consumption. Such misclassification based on any level of processing could inadvertently restrict access to nutrient-dense produce and undermine dietary guidance.” Taken together, these comments suggest that regulators may face pressure to incorporate carveouts, phased implementation timelines, or program-specific exceptions.

Skepticism about the scientific basis for a UPF definition

Several industry and food science organizations questioned whether the current evidence base is sufficient to support a regulatory definition. Groups including the American Frozen Food Institute, International Food Additives Council, Institute of Food Technologists and Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences argued that existing classification systems rely heavily on ingredients or formulation as proxies for processing and lack clear causal evidence linking processing itself to adverse health outcomes.
The American Frozen Food Institute stated that “the lack of scientific agreement and evidence indicates that establishment of any regulatory definition to inform policy is premature and futile at this time.” Similarly, IAFNS highlighted the need for classification systems to rely on “properties that are empirically testable and linked to health-related endpoints,” suggesting that current approaches may not meet that standard.
These commenters wrote that much of the existing research is observational and may not isolate processing as an independent driver of health outcomes. They generally supported continued focus on nutrient density, food groups, and overall dietary patterns rather than establishing a standalone processing-based classification.

Calls for practical, label-based definitions

A number of commenters asserted that any definition must use information available on food labels. Groups such as CSPI, New York City’s Health Department, and Guiding Stars highlighted the importance of using ingredient lists, nutrient disclosures and other label-based information rather than relying on proprietary or undisclosed processing methods.
CSPI posited that a definition should “be based on information found on product labels, using evidence-based nutrition, ingredient, and food category criteria.” Similarly, Guiding Stars wrote that the Nutrition Facts Panel and ingredient list provide a “transparent, consistent, and scalable foundation for evaluation without relying on proprietary formulation details or subjective judgments about certain product characteristics like processing.”
These stakeholders said definitions tied to measurable and accessible criteria would be more practical for enforcement and consumer understanding. They also wrote that relying on information not currently disclosed on labels could limit the feasibility of implementing a processing-based definition.

Alternative frameworks and international approaches

Some commenters suggested that regulators consider alternatives to NOVA or hybrid approaches. Proposals included the IUFoST NOURISH framework, which evaluates both formulation and processing using measurable indicators. Others recommended consumer-facing systems such as traffic light labeling, which categorizes foods based on overall healthfulness rather than processing level.
Several commenters also encouraged the agencies to review international policy models. These included Brazil’s use of NOVA in dietary guidelines, Mexico’s front-of-package warning labels, and Australia’s approach to discretionary foods. These examples were cited as potential models or reference points for how a U.S. definition could be structured or applied in practice.

What’s next

Taken together, the large number of stakeholder comments reflects broad interest in establishing a federal definition of UPFs but little consensus on how that definition should be structured. The comments highlight several challenges the FDA and USDA will need to address, including balancing scientific consistency with practical implementation, determining whether processing alone is sufficient to identify foods of concern, and ensuring that any definition aligns with existing nutrition policy frameworks. Commenters also repeatedly raised questions about how a definition would be applied in practice, including whether it could be operationalized using existing food labeling, how it would interact with federal nutrition programs, and whether it could create unintended incentives for reformulation or product classification. The most consistent signal across the docket is that regulators may face pressure to avoid a definition based solely on processing intensity.
At the same time, the docket suggests that the agencies are unlikely to satisfy all camps with a single simple framework. Commenters who favored NOVA often viewed a processing-based definition as necessary to capture harms they believe are not explained by nutrients alone. Other stakeholders argued just as strongly that nutrient density, food category and intended use must remain central to the definition, especially for products that contribute meaningfully to diet quality or serve important medical, developmental or operational functions. This split suggests that the FDA and USDA may ultimately look for a middle-ground approach that draws from processing-based concepts while incorporating additional criteria or implementation guardrails.
The comments also show that different food industries are watching the proposal closely. Meat, dairy, frozen food, plant-based food, produce and specialized nutrition groups did not all recommend the same policy approach, but many shared a similar concern that a broad UPF definition could sweep in foods that are processed for safety, shelf life, fortification, convenience or functionality rather than because they have low nutritional value. That repeated concern may increase pressure on regulators to explain clearly what the definition is – and is not – meant to capture with evidence-based justifications.
Another major question is whether the agencies are developing a definition primarily for research consistency, consumer-facing policy or future regulatory use. Some commenters treated the exercise as a threshold scientific question, while others clearly viewed it as a precursor to front-of-package labeling, nutrition standards, procurement policies or school meal restrictions. This distinction matters because a definition that is workable for research may not be easily translated into labeling or enforcement, particularly if it relies on information not currently disclosed on food packages.
In the near term, the agencies may face pressure to show that any proposed definition can be operationalized using information already available to regulators, manufacturers and consumers. Multiple commenters pointed to the Nutrition Facts panel and ingredient list as the most practical foundation for implementation, while others said current labels do not reveal enough about industrial processing methods to support a meaningful definition. That tension could shape whether the agencies pursue a narrower label-based approach, a broader conceptual framework for future policymaking or a phased strategy that starts with food categories or nutrients of concern and evolves over time.
The timing of a proposed definition remains somewhat uncertain but appears to be approaching. The FDA’s 2026 priority deliverables do not specify a timeline, only saying that the “HFP will continue to collaborate with USDA and other federal government partners on gathering information, data and research, and analyzing comments to the 2025 RFI to develop a federal government definition of UPFs.” The language indicates that the timeline may extend beyond this year if the focus remains on interagency discussions, coordination and public comment review. However, recent public remarks from agency leadership suggest the process is accelerating. HHS Secretary ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. said in late February 2026 that the administration plans to release a federal UPF definition in April, and FDA Commissioner MARTIN MAKARY provided an April or May timeline during remarks a week later at the National Food Policy Conference. These signals suggest that a proposal could emerge in the coming weeks, potentially reflecting the hybrid and operational approaches described across stakeholder comments.

To contact the authors of this item, please email Scarlett Salem ( ssalem@agencyiq.com) and Jared Rothstein ( jrothstein@agencyiq.com).
To contact the editor of this item, please email Jason Wermers ( jwermers@agencyiq.com).

Key documents and dates

Public Docket: Ultra-Processed Foods; Request for Information (comment period closed Oct. 23, 2025)