Ultra-processed food regulations could change how we eat
ASU experts say new definition of what is considered ultra-processed could have wide-ranging impacts on food choices
According to a change in the definition of ultra-processed food by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, doughnuts are still considered ultra-processed — but so are what has traditionally been considered healthier options like whole-grain bread and unsweetened applesauce. Photo by Deanna Dent/ASU
The United States Department of Agriculture is finalizing its definition of ultra-processed food. Experts say it could be the federal government’s most consequential food policy decision in years.
What to watch: The decision comes amid a national debate about how food impacts our health and how involved the government should be in choosing what appears on our plates.
The definition could influence what’s served during school lunch and what can be purchased with food stamps. It also could change how products are packaged and marketed — impacting almost every decision we make at the supermarket.
Why this is so tricky: Research has linked eating ultra-processed foods to obesity, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. But scientists are still clarifying whether those harmful health effects are caused by the processing or the poorer nutritional quality of some foods.
“The stigma is that if it’s an ultra-processed food, it must mean it’s not healthy,” said Christopher Neubert, deputy director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, housed within the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory at Arizona State University.
“But that’s not necessarily true. By some definitions, a bagel could be considered an ultra-processed food.”
So could whole-grain breads, unsweetened yogurt and meat-alternative patties, which are generally considered healthy food choices but also contain highly processed proteins, oils and additives that improve texture or extend freshness.
In fact, it’s estimated that roughly 70% of America’s food supply could be considered ultra-processed, depending on where the USDA draws the line.
What we’re doing: The Swette Center and Heartland Health Research Alliance submitted detailed comments urging the federal agency to focus on how ultra-processed foods impact public health.
They proposed, among other ideas, adding NuCal labeling to the front of food packaging that rates foods based on their nutritional value and how much they are processed.
What’s next: Some interests are pressuring the USDA to take a tough stance on ultra-processed foods. They point to state-level bans on some foods and ingredients, as well as recently revised federal dietary guidelines that recommended consuming fewer ultra-processed foods.
But others worry that a stringent federal definition could stigmatize otherwise healthy foods or raise the costs of groceries, particularly for those who can least afford it.
It’s unclear where the agency will land.
“In an ideal situation, they’ll put out a definition that is absolutely clear, and then everyone could move forward,” Neubert said.
“The big challenge comes if there is any ambiguity. We expect to spend a lot of time this year helping people understand what this means.”
This article is part of “Futurecast,” a biannual guide to how the Global Futures Laboratory is solving the most pressing water, power, air, heat and food issues.