U.S. Policies Addressing Ultra-processed Foods, 1980–2022

Abstract

Introduction:

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are industrial formulations manufactured from substances derived from foods and industrial produced ingredients and additives. Few countries’ policies directly regulate UPF but several countries’ dietary guidelines suggest eating less UPF. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) do not mention the UPF-category but the 2025–2030 Advisory Committee is tasked with evaluating research related to UPF consumption. The DGAs are used for U.S. food and nutrition policies. It is unknown the extent that federal and state policymakers have already proposed or passed policies addressing UPFs.

Methods:

Research was conducted using Lexis+ into federal and state statutes, bills, resolutions, regulations, proposed rules and Congressional Research Services reports to identify policymaking related to “highly processed” and “ultra-processed” food from January 1980 through February 2023.

Results:

This research identified 25 policy actions (8 federal, 17 state) proposed or passed between 1983 and 2022 (22 of them, 2011–2022). The most common topic area related to children’s nutrition (n=14) and a prevalent theme related to food prices. Only one policy defined UPF and three policies sought to address the broader food environment by providing incentives to small retailers to stock healthy foods.

Conclusions:

Addressing UPF in U.S. policy activity is quite recent, with few policies directly targeting UPFs but rather discussing them as contrary to healthy diets. Internationally, UPFs have been directly integrated into national dietary guidelines and school food programs. These policies are consistent with emerging U.S. policy activity and may provide information for future policymaking in the United States.

Introduction

After decades of focusing on single nutrients in nutrition science, policy and dietary guidance, emerging evidence indicates that dietary quality is more complex and that the processing level of food influences its nutritional quality.^1,2 The NOVA Food Classification System, proposed in 2009, is the most widely accepted method to define and classify food based on processing levels.³ NOVA labeled what is colloquially known as highly-processed food as “ultra-processed food” (UPF) and defined them as industrial formulations made mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods, non-culinary ingredients and additives such as flavors, colors, emulsifiers, chemical sweeteners (e.g., maltodextrin, dextrose), proteins (e.g., soy protein isolate) and modified oils (e.g., hydrogenated) whose function is to make the final product convenient, hyper-palatable, appealing and low-cost (Table 1).^3–6 Although UPFs have been around for decades, relatively recent research has found that they are associated with lower diet quality among children and adults,^1,7 increased risk of weight gain, diabetes, hypertension and all-cause mortality in observational studies,⁸ and increased calorie consumption and weight gain in short-term randomized trials.⁹

Table 1.

NOVA classification system^a definitions and examples

NOVA Classification	Definition	Examples
GROUP 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods	Edible parts of plants, animals, fungi separated from nature (unprocessed) or minimally processed (e.g., steaming, roasting, freezing, placing in containers, vacuum packaging), using methods that do not add other food substances to the original food (e.g., salt, sugar, oil or fat) to extend the life of unprocessed foods, enabling their storage for longer use, or to make them edible or aid in preparation.	Fresh, frozen dried fruit and vegetables; herbs and spices; fresh or pasteurized plain yogurt; tea, coffee, water; mixture of more than one group 1 food such as granola without additives.  Boiled Potatoes
GROUP 2: Processed culinary ingredients	Substances obtained directly from group 1 foods or from nature by industrial processes such as pressing, centrifuging, refining, extracting or mining; used to prepare, season and cook group 1 foods.	Vegetable oil; butter and lard; cane and beet sugar; maple syrup; table salt.
GROUP 3: Processed foods	Products made by adding salt, oil, sugar or other group 2 ingredients to group 1 foods, using preservation methods such as canning and bottling; processes and ingredients are designed to increase the durability of group 1 foods and make them more enjoyable by modifying or enhancing their sensory qualities.	Canned or bottled vegetables and legumes in brine; salted or sugared nuts and seeds; salted, dried, cured, or smoked meats and fish; fruit in syrup.  Potato chip made in home kitchens from frying or baking sliced potato with vegetable oil and salt.
GROUP 4: Ultraprocessed foods	Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes that may require sophisticated equipment and technology (e.g., fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications and assembly unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying); ingredients may include sugar, oils or fats, or salt, and substances that are of no or rare culinary use such as high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and protein isolates; additives whose function is to make the final product palatable or more appealing such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling, and glazing agents; and additives that prolong product duration, protect original properties or prevent proliferation of microorganisms. Processes and ingredients are designed to create convenient (ready-to-consume), profitable (lowcost ingredients, long shelflife), hyper-palatable products liable to displace freshly prepared dishes and meals made from all other NOVA food groups.	Carbonated soft drinks; sweet or savoury packaged snacks; chocolate, candies; ice-cream; mass-produced packaged breads and buns; margarines; cookies, pastries, cakes, and cake mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’ yoghurts; ‘fruit’ drinks; pre-prepared ready-to-heat products such as pizza; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and ‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products; and powdered and packaged ‘instant’ soups.  Savory potato crisps made with ~10 ingredients, e.g., Pringles (invented in 1968)b.

^aMonteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Costa Louzada, M.L. and Pereira Machado, P. 2019. Ultra-processed foods,diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. Rome, FAO.

^bPringles^® Original Crisps. Nutrition. Ingredients. https://www.pringles.com/en-us/products/pringles-the-original-product.html

Few countries’ policies directly regulate UPFs.^{2,10, 11} As of 2022, seven countries’ dietary guidelines expressly recommended eating less UPFs.¹² The current U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) do not mention highly-processed or UPFs – only processed meat as a category of which to consume less.¹³ Importantly, however, UPFs are expressly included as a topic for evaluation for the 2025–2030 DGA Advisory Committee.¹⁴ The DGAs have important policy implications as they are the basis for federal, state and local food and nutrition programs including the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs (collectively, NSLP) and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), among others.

It is unknown the extent that U.S. federal or state policy has addressed UPFs. In order to fill this gap and provide a descriptive baseline of UPF-related policies, this research sought to identify whether and in what context policymakers have proposed or passed policies targeting UPFs.

Methods

In March 2023, research was conducted using Lexis+ and keywords “ultraprocessed,” “ultra processed,” “highly processed” and “food” into federal and state statutes, bills, resolutions, regulations, proposed rules and Congressional Research Services (CRS) reports (because these provide information at the request of Congress-members to support legislation)¹⁵ to identify policymaking related to the UPF-category from January 1980 through February 2023. Excluded policies were those that focused on international trade, genetically modified organisms or food fraud. Data extracted included government entity, year, type of policy action and how UPFs were addressed.

Results

This research identified 25 total policy actions (8 federal, 17 state) between 1983 and 2022, with the majority of them (n=22) proposed or passed between 2011 and 2022. Federally, 3 CRS reports, 4 proposed rules, 1 federal bill, 0 laws and 0 regulations, were identified (Table 2). At the state level, 5 adopted and 2 proposed resolutions, 4 regulations, 3 bills, 2 statutes, and 1 proposed regulation were identified (Table 3). All policy activity used the term “highly processed” except a Massachusetts bill that identified and defined “ultra-processed food,” in order to remove UPFs from school meals. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected a National Academy of Sciences (formerly the Institute of Medicine) recommendation to limit “highly processed meats” in CACFP due to difficulty defining this category of UPFs.

Table 2.

Federal Policies Addressing Ultra-processed or Highly Processed Food

Jurisdiction, Policy Type, Citation, Date	Title/Purpose	Language regarding Ultra-processed or Highly Processed Food
Federal Congressional Activity
117 H.R. 8349, 117 S. 4529 (bill introduced July 13, 2022; failed to pass)	Children’s Safe Welcome Act of 2022: to provide protections for children in immigration custody	The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall ensure that each U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility that houses one or more noncitizen children provides them with “unrestricted access to healthy snacks” and the “availability of highly processed foods and sugars shall be limited.”
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report No. R40621 (September 27, 2013)	Farm-to-Food Price Dynamics Reports,	The “farm share” of the market price of a food product varies widely across retail food products depending on the degree of processing and transformation, marketing costs and the type of retail outlet. The more highly processed food items have significantly lower farm shares than less processed products (e.g., 52.7% for eggs, 16.8% for highly processed ice cream). As consumers purchase more highly processed food products, such as microwave-ready dinners, relative to less processed fruits, vegetables, and meats, the marketing bill increases. More highly processed food products are likely to show less price response to a change in the related farm commodity price than are less-processed retail products like meat.
CRS Report No. R40545 (September 13, 2013)	Consumers and Food Price Inflation	An array of costs are layered on top of the price of the raw agricultural commodity, including handling, transportation, storage, and processing, as well as the insurance, financing, and advertising costs necessary to move the product to the retail customer. More highly processed food products, where the farm-level commodity value contributes a small share to the final price, are less influenced by farm-level price changes than are those food products that have very little marketing and processing as part of the final retail product. Evidence suggests that highly processed foods more consistently adhere to steady, stable upward price trends dependent on general economic conditions. In contrast, prices for less-processed retail food products—such as eggs, milk, and fresh fruits and vegetables— respond far more quickly to changes in both farm commodity prices and economic conditions. Similar to other highly processed food products, the prepared-food group (which includes frozen and freeze-dried prepared foods) and the carbonated beverages indexes tend to follow the swings in consumer demand as reflected by the general economy.
CRS Report No. RS22859 (April 10, 2008)	Food Price Inflation: Causes and Impacts	Higher energy costs increase transportation, processing, and retail costs. Although the cost of commodities such as corn or wheat are a small part of the final retail price of most food products, they have risen enough to have an impact on retail prices. Generally, price changes at the farm level have a diminished impact on retail prices, especially for highly processed products.
Federal Agency Activity
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) final regulation 81 Federal Register 33742, 33862 (May 27, 2016)	Amending food labeling regulations to update nutrition information (relevant here to updating the dietary fiber definition)	FDA “found that a number of isolated or synthetic fibers have a demonstrated beneficial physiological effect to health” and include such fibers in the definition for dietary fiber.” One comment “said that the dietary fiber definition would encourage the food industry to market cookies, candies, ice cream, refined grains, and other highly processed and relatively non-nutritious foods that would compete with the fiber-rich fruits, vegetables, beans, and whole grains that are linked to a lower risk of disease.” FDA disagreed with the comment, and found the contrary more likely: “manufacturers can and currently do add ... non-digestible carbohydrates to a variety of foods that may or may not have a beneficial physiological effect. The final rule's definition of dietary fiber would prevent the declaration of isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates that have no beneficial physiological effect as dietary fiber. If there were to be a change in the marketing of snack foods, it would more likely result in a reduction of the use of isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates that do not meet the dietary fiber definition.”
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) proposed rule 80 Federal Register 2037, 2041 (January 15, 2015)	Child and Adult Care Food Program: Meal Pattern Revisions Related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (to better align the meal patterns with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans)	USDA FNS: “The IOM recommended many food specifications which would limit or prohibit certain types of foods and/or how foods may be prepared. Food specifications included such things as limiting ... highly processed meats throughout the week.” “The proposed rule does not adopt this recommendation at this time due to the difficulty involved in clearly defining processed meats. However, comments on how processed meats could be defined and the feasibility, practicality, and challenges associated with implementing such a limitation are encouraged.”
FDA proposed rule 56 Federal Register 60689 (November 27, 1991)	FDA proposed to authorize health claims relating to the association between calcium and osteoporosis	FDA found: “Protein rich foods such as milk, meat, poultry, fish, cheese, and cereal grains contribute the majority of phosphorus in the American diet, but highly processed and convenience foods can contribute 20 to 30 percent of the daily phosphorus as food additives (Ref. 58). Evidence shows that phosphorus intake may be underestimated as much as 15 to 20 percent, because the phosphorus supplied by numerous food additives in processed foods are not always accounted for in tables of food composition.”
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) withdrawal of proposed regulations 48 Federal Register 23270 (May 24, 1983)	Termination of rulemaking concerning food advertising; the proposed rule would have regulated, among other claims, "natural food" claims.	“This abdication invites a free-for-all for deceptive health claims for food -- claims which will cynically exploit and distort growing public concern with diet and health. Advertisers will continue to spend fortunes to promote ... highly processed foods as natural. The very fact that these claims continue to proliferate is evidence that they are effective in getting consumers to buy -- and often to pay a premium.”

Table 3.

Unique State Policies Discussing Ultra-processed or Highly Processed Food

Jurisdiction, Policy Type, Citation, Date	Title/Purpose	Language regarding Ultra-processed or Highly Processed Food
State Laws and Legislative Resolutions
Colorado Senate Resolution 2019 Bill CO S.R. 6 (adopted, March 26, 2019)	Designating March 26, 2019 as “Children’s Health Day” in Colorado	WHEREAS, There is a link between hunger and obesity, and access to fresh produce and lean meats is often limited in low-income neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Low-cost foods tend to be more highly processed and calorie-dense than more expensive foods and may not provide children with the vitamins and nutrients their brains and bodies need to develop healthily.
Colorado Joint Resolution Introduced in the Senate 2017 Bill CO S.J.R. 29 (adopted, April 6, 2017)	Designating May 2, 2017 as “Children’s Health Day” in Colorado	WHEREAS, There is a link between hunger and obesity, and access to fresh produce and lean meats is often limited in low-income neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Low-cost foods tend to be more highly processed and calorie-dense than more expensive foods and may not provide children with the vitamins and nutrients their brains and bodies need to develop healthily.
Colorado Joint Resolution Introduced in the House 2016 Bill CO H.J.R. 1019 (adopted, May 10, 2016)	Designating May 2, 2016 as “Children’s Health Day” in Colorado	WHEREAS, There is a link between hunger and obesity, and access to fresh produce and lean meats is often limited in low-income neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Low-cost foods tend to be more highly processed and calorie-dense than more expensive foods and may not provide children with the vitamins and nutrients their brains and bodies need to develop healthily.
Colorado Joint Resolution Introduced in the House 2015 Bill CO H.J.R. 1025 (adopted, May 6, 2015)	Designating May 1, 2015 as “Children’s Health Day” in Colorado	WHEREAS, There is a link between hunger and obesity, and access to fresh produce and lean meats is often limited in low-income neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Low-cost foods tend to be more highly processed and calorie-dense than more expensive foods and may not provide children with the vitamins and nutrients their brains and bodies need to develop healthily.
Kentucky Resolution 2014 Bill KY H.R. 77 (adopted, March 24, 2014)	Commending Kentucky State University (KSU) for its Heart Healthy Wellness Initiatives promoting the importance of diet, health, small family farms, and access to healthy foods throughout the Commonwealth	Kentucky has some of the poorest health statistics in the nation, driven largely by poor diet and lifestyle practices. This Honorable Body finds and declares that the interest of the Commonwealth has been served by: (1) KSU’s nutritional outreach to neighborhoods where "food deserts" exist; (2) KSU’s small family farm outreach; (3) Kentucky family farmers; (4) the growth of Kentucky's Homegrown by Heroes program, farmers' markets, and the "Farm to Table" movements; (5) greater numbers of Kentuckians returning to the healthy example of their parents and grandparents by planting their own gardens each year and by eating less fast foods and less highly processed foods; (6) greater opportunities for Kentucky's small family farmers resulting from greater numbers of Kentuckians consuming a more nutritious diet; and (7) the faith connection to healthy eating, as faith traditions around the world recognize a Godgiven duty to be good stewards of the gifts of life and health as stated in the Bible.
New Jersey law NJ Stat §§ 24:4A-6 — 24:4A-13 (enacted January 21, 2019)	Healthy Small Food Retailer Act	Small food stores, which tend to charge higher prices for food compared to grocery stores and supermarkets, have limited supplies of fresh produce, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products and frequently sell highly processed foods that are high in fat and low in nutrients; Providing assistance to existing small food retailers to stock fresh produce and other healthy foods that promote good nutrition will better provide people with access to healthier foods.
Oklahoma law 2017 OK S.B. 506 (enacted April 25, 2017)	Healthy Food Financing Act.	Small food stores tend to sell little fresh produce, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. These stores commonly sell highly-processed foods that are high in fat and low in nutrients. Small stores tend to charge higher prices for their food as compared to grocery stores and supermarkets. The program established pursuant to this act is intended to provide a dedicated source of financing for grocery stores operating in underserved communities in Oklahoma, in both urban and rural areas, to increase access to affordable healthy food.
State Bills
Florida bill 2017 FL S.B. 1592 (introduced, March 3, 2017, failed to pass)	Healthy Food Assistance Program for SNAP and WIC approved small retailers operating in low/moderately low-income communities to increase the availability/sale of fresh nutritious food	WHEREAS, small food retailers tend to sell few fresh produce, whole grains, or low-fat dairy products, and small food retailers commonly sell highly processed foods that are high in fat and low in nutrients, and small food retailers tend to charge higher prices for their food as compared to grocery stores and supermarkets, and providing assistance to existing small food retailers to stock fresh produce and other healthy foods and promote good nutrition can provide residents with access to healthier foods.
Massachusetts bill 2021 MA H.B. 564 (introduced, March 29, 2021, failed to pass)	AN ACT for healthy school lunches as part of the reimbursable meal offering within the federal National School Lunch Program and to set apart March 21 as Massachusetts Child Nutrition Day.	School lunch providers may not provide more than 20% of entrée items made up of ultraprocessed food (or have a nutritional composition that includes more than 30 milligrams of cholesterol or more than 5% of the entrées' total calories from saturated fat).  "Ultra-processed food" is defined as industrial formulations of food substances never or rarely used in kitchens (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and hydrolysed proteins), or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable, appealing, or preservable (such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, nitrates, nitrites, preservatives, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents).
New York bills 2021 NY S.B. 7487 (introduced October 27, 2021, failed to pass); 2021 Bill NY A.B. 8583 (introduced December 13, 2021, failed to pass)	AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, the general business law and the public health law, in relation to food and food product advertising to children	This predatory commercial speech has contributed to an epidemic of obesity and its related comorbidities, particularly in the children of black and brown communities. Furthermore, there is a growing consensus that highly processed food is habit forming, increasing the danger to public health that can arise from succumbing to misleading advertising. New York has a strong and substantial interest in protecting our children from negative health consequences.
Texas resolution 2011 Bill TX H.C.R. 87 (introduced, March 8, 2011)	RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby respectfully urge the United States Congress to expand the Healthy Incentives Pilot to communities across the country	WHEREAS, During the past four decades, as Americans have increased their consumption of highly processed foods, obesity rates have soared among all age groups and have increased more than fourfold among children ages 6 to 11. Processed foods high in fat and sugar are less expensive than fresh produce, and the [Healthy Incentives Pilot] program represents a significant step toward reducing the financial barriers that prevent low-income residents from adopting healthier eating habits.
State Agency Regulations and Ceremonial Resolutions
District of Columbia ceremonial resolution, 59 D.C. REG. 1958 (adopted 2012)	DC School Breakfast Recognition Resolution of 2012	WHEREAS, District of Columbia public and charter schools have significantly improved their menus by replacing highly processed and sugary foods with more whole grains and fresh fruits at breakfast.
Maine rule 2021 ME Regulation 12129 (adopted, October 8, 2021)	Childcare Facility rule	Unhealthy foods such as convenience food, fast food, and highly processed foods with high salt or sugar content must be limited to special occasions such as holiday celebrations and birthday parties. Soda must not be served at any time.
Texas regulation 19 TAC § 115.26 (adopted, effective August 1, 2022, 46 TexReg 2756)	Healthy eating and physical activity - risk and protective factors, health education grade 6	The student is expected to: (A) analyze the impact of moderate physical activity and dietary choices on the prevention of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes; (B) identify strategies to adopt healthy behaviors to reduce the likelihood of developing chronic conditions such as obesity, heart disease, or diabetes; (C) analyze internal and external factors that influence healthy eating and physical activity behaviors; and (D) discuss the nutritional differences between preparing and serving fresh or minimally processed foods and commercially prepared or highly processed foods.
Texas regulation 19 TAC § 115.27 (adopted, effective August 1, 2022, 46 TexReg 2756)	Healthy eating and physical activity - risk and protective factors, health education grade 7–8	The student is expected to: (A) analyze the impact of moderate physical activity and healthy dietary practices in the prevention of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes; (B) analyze risk factors that may lead to the development of chronic conditions and formulate strategies to reduce the likelihood of developing chronic conditions; (C) identify community and digital resources that can assist in developing healthy eating and physical activity behaviors; and (D) investigate and compare the nutritional differences between preparing and serving fresh food or minimally processed food and serving commercially prepared or highly processed foods.
Texas regulation 19 TAC § 115.38 (adopted, effective August 1, 2022, 46 TexReg 2756)	Healthy eating and physical activity - risk and protective factors, health education grades 9–12	The student is expected to: (A) evaluate the nutritional differences between preparing and serving fresh or minimally processed food versus serving commercially prepared or highly processed foods; and (B) evaluate the connection between physical activity and dietary choices as they relate to the prevention of chronic conditions.
State Proposed Rule
Kansas proposed rule 2011 KS Regulation 6955 (March 10, 2011)	Childcare facility rule	Nutrition and food service. Each applicant with a temporary permit and each licensee shall develop and implement menu plans for meals and snacks that contain a variety of healthful foods, including fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, and low-fat dairy products. The plans shall limit highly processed foods and foods and beverages that are of low nutritional value.

Most policy actions supported healthy diets which were defined to be contrary to consuming highly-processed food. The most common topic area across all policies related to children (n=14), in terms of healthy childcare facility meals (Maine regulation, federal and Kansas proposed rules), healthy school food (Massachusetts bill, DC resolution), health education (3 Texas regulations), declaring “Children’s Health Day” (4 Colorado resolutions), and providing healthy food to noncitizen children detained in immigration custody (federal bill). Two policies related to food marketing; the Federal Trade Commission withdrew proposed regulations restricting “natural food” claims from highly-processed food and a New York State bill sought to protect children from highly-processed food marketing.

Another theme that emerged related to food price. The CRS Reports found that farmers receive a smaller percent of dollars spent on highly-processed products than less-processed food (e.g., the farm share for highly-processed ice-cream is 16.8% while it is 52.7% for eggs); therefore, highly-processed food price trends depend on general economic conditions whereas, prices for less-processed food (e.g., milk, eggs, fruit, vegetables) respond to changes in both farm commodity prices and economic conditions. Five resolutions (4, Colorado; 1, Texas) noted an inverse association between higher levels of processing and lower food prices. Oklahoma and New Jersey laws and a Florida bill provided financial assistance to small food retailers in underserved communities (which they found generally charge higher prices for food) to increase the availability of fresh produce and nutritious food to reduce highly-processed food consumption.

Discussion

This research found that addressing ultra- or highly-processed food in U.S. policy activity is quite recent, with few policies directly targeting UPFs but rather discussing them as contrary to healthy diets. The most common topic area supported healthy eating for children through unprocessed food and nutrition education. Three policies sought to address the broader food environment by providing incentives to small retailers in low resource communities to stock healthy foods. The policy activity also highlighted food pricing concerns.

Per calorie, the purchase price of UPFs tends to be lower than unprocessed foods; in one analysis, $0.55 vs. $1.45 per 100 kcal, respectively.¹⁶ In that study the authors also evaluated the nutrient density of foods based on NOVA classifications and specifically found that ultra-processed grains, fats and sweets with low nutrient density scores cost less per calorie than unprocessed foods.¹⁶ This makes them more affordable but may contribute to nutrition insecurity for low-income households.¹⁷

In its 2015 proposed rule, the USDA stated that it was too difficult to define “highly processed meats” for CACFP. However, starting with the 2015–2020 DGAs, issued by USDA and HHS, the DGAs defined processed meat.¹⁸ Based on this definition, New York City successfully eliminated processed meat from its public-school system.¹⁹

Now, the 2025–2030 DGA Advisory Committee is tasked with evaluating the science for all UPFs but only expressly in terms of UPFs’ relationship to body weight.¹⁴ It remains to be seen if the Committee will consider all evidence on the association between UPF and poor diet quality and whether the agencies adopt its recommendations into the DGAs, which would be conducive to influencing policy and consumption patterns.

Only one policy defined UPF: the Massachusetts school food bill which combined food categories with processing levels and nutrient cut-points to identify appropriate foods. Similarly, Brazil’s new school food requirement prohibits the sale of UPFs, identified through a combination of food categories (e.g., soft drinks, candy, cakes) and UPFs’ identifying feature⁶ – the inclusion of industrial ingredients.^20,21 These combination-approaches are directly relevant to the U.S. NSLP. After school-based nutrient recommendations were established in 2014, the food industry reformulated products to create “look-alike” UPFs that met “smart snack” guidelines but did not meaningfully improve nutrition quality – highlighting one limitation of nutrient-only approaches.²²

Previous research also found that U.S. retail-based “junk food” policies combined product categories with processing levels and nutrients to identify unhealthy foods; notably the product categories commonly differentiated between staple and non-staple foods to apply taxation or other regulations to the latter.²³ Likewise, focusing on non-staple UPFs can ward off expected opposition to addressing UPFs through policy.²⁴

Conclusions

U.S. policy has not directly addressed UPFs but such policy activity is emerging. Internationally, UPFs have been directly integrated into national dietary guidelines and school food programs. The DGAs and NSLP may likewise be viable avenues for the United States to consider an approach to reducing UPF consumption and encouraging a more robust public discussion identifying them as products to avoid.²⁵