Input Stories

Manufacturers share the administration’s goals of improving public health and supporting informed decision-making by consumers, but current efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration to define “ultra-processed foods” could have the opposite effect, the NAM told the agencies recently.

What’s going on: Manufacturers are constantly improving ingredients and processes to “make nutritious foods more accessible to consumers in every community and help ensure that safety and affordability remain the cornerstones of the U.S. food supply,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Jake Kuhns told the agencies last week in response to a request for information on a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods.

• In the RFI, the agencies state that such a definition, “developed as part of a joint effort by federal agencies, would allow for consistency in research and policy to pave the way for addressing health concerns associated with the consumption of UPFs.”

The concern: But defining UPFs and using the definition in policies and programs “would undermine public health by shifting food and nutrition policies, programs and education away from nutrient composition and toward subjective judgments about processing methods,” Kuhns continued.

• This risks confusing consumers, making them less confident in the safety of the food supply and needlessly complicating existing regulations that effectively ensure food safety and support informed consumer decision-making.

What should be done: The agencies should keep in mind two core principles, the NAM said.

• First, food policies should continue to be based on nutrient composition, not processing methods, which aligns with evidence-driven consensus among experts.
• Second, the term “ultra-processed” is stigmatizing and would lead consumers to conclude that certain functional ingredients and processing methods are inherently unhealthy or unsafe—even if they have been certified through FDA’s own safety standards.

The final say: “The NAM urges FDA and USDA to reconsider its effort to define ‘UPFs’ and instead ensure that food policies remain grounded in science with objective, measurable and nutrient-based criteria in the context of the total diet,” Kuhns said.