FDA and USDA Face a Three-Way Fight Over the Ultra-Processed Food Definition
The question is no longer whether ultra-processed foods pose a problem. It is how regulators should define them in the first place. According to a new report from FoodNavigator-USA, more than 5,000 comments submitted to FDA and USDA reveal a debate that has split into three distinct camps, each pushing a different vision for what counts as an ultra-processed food.
A Year-Long Request for Information
FDA and USDA opened this fight themselves. On July 23, 2025, under the leadership of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, the agencies announced a joint Request for Information seeking public input on a uniform federal definition of ultra-processed foods. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary called the effort necessary because there is, in his words, “no single authoritative definition for ultra-processed foods for the U.S. food supply.”
The stakes are considerable. The agencies estimate that roughly 70 percent of packaged products in the U.S. food supply qualify as ultra-processed, and that children get more than 60 percent of their daily calories from these foods. The comment period was later extended by 30 days, and by the time it closed, thousands of organizations, companies and individuals had weighed in.
Three Camps, No Consensus
The comments settled into three broad positions, according to FoodNavigator-USA’s review of the submissions.
The first camp wants FDA to adopt NOVA, the Brazilian-developed classification system that sorts food by degree of processing rather than nutrient content. The Environmental Working Group and the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation both backed this approach. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation warned that scrapping NOVA for a brand new framework could undermine years of research already built on NOVA’s categories, arguing that a fragmented approach would make disease prevention efforts harder to sustain over time.
The second camp wants a hybrid model that folds nutrient composition in alongside processing method. The American Academy of Pediatrics argued that a workable definition needs to weigh sodium, saturated fat, added sugar and energy density too, noting that some fortified foods, including certain breakfast cereals, land in NOVA’s ultra-processed category despite offering real nutritional value. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene took a similar stance, pointing to high-fructose corn syrup, artificial colors and bromates as ingredients worth flagging regardless of how a food is processed. The UK’s Department of Health and Social Care, citing its own Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, made a related point: NOVA’s ultra-processed category includes both soda and fortified low-fat yogurt, which suggests processing alone cannot reliably stand in for healthfulness. Consumer Reports added that categories like infant formula and medical foods should not receive automatic exemptions, citing formulas that rely heavily on corn syrup solids and maltodextrin.
A Third Camp Says Processing Is Not the Point
Commodity groups and food science organizations offered a different argument entirely: processing should not be treated as a stand in for health. The International Food Information Council, the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, the USA Rice Federation, the National Sorghum Producers, the National Pork Board, the American Meat Science Association and the European Food Emulsifiers Manufacturers Association all raised objections to building a federal definition on NOVA.
The National Pork Board argued that processed pork products remain nutrient-dense sources of protein, vitamins, and minerals and warned that some plant based meat alternatives could end up more processed than the pork products NOVA would flag. The American Meat Science Association made a similar point about food safety, noting that ingredients such as nitrates, nitrites, sodium lactate, and salt serve real safety functions in processed meat. The group summed up its position bluntly: “processing and healthfulness are independent topics.” The European Food Emulsifiers Manufacturers Association defended emulsifiers as safe additives that improve texture, shelf life, and stability, arguing that NOVA penalizes foods simply for containing them. The Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences went further, calling on the FDA to build a classification system around measurable health outcomes rather than assumptions tied to how a food is made.
A Deadline Already Missed
The comment period closing does not mean a definition is imminent. Kennedy originally said FDA would release a proposed definition by April 2026, a target the agency has already missed. Speaking at the IFT First conference in Chicago this month, Donald Prater, FDA’s acting deputy commissioner for food, acknowledged that the work has proven “quite challenging” but said it remains a priority. “Just because it’s a tough challenge, it doesn’t mean it’s something that we should shy away from,” Prater told attendees, adding that the agency is still sorting through competing proposals to find something workable.
Kennedy has been blunter about his own views, having previously described ultra-processed foods as “poison.” Prater was careful to frame FDA’s mandate more narrowly, saying the agency’s job is not to ban ultra-processed foods but to keep the food supply safe, keep labeling truthful, and give consumers the information they need to make their own choices. That framing matters because FDA is simultaneously developing a front of pack nutrition labeling rule, a separate but related effort to make added sugar and calorie information easier for shoppers to spot.
Some manufacturers are not waiting for a final rule. Bimbo Bakeries USA, which owns Sara Lee, announced it will strip artificial preservatives and emulsifiers from five of its top brands as part of a broader clean label push. Most companies so far have focused on removing artificial colors ahead of a voluntary year end FDA deadline, but a smaller group is already going further.
Why the Outcome Reaches Beyond Washington
Brian Sylvester, a partner in Morrison Foerster’s FDA and healthcare regulatory practice, told FoodNavigator-USA that the legal weight of a federal definition depends entirely on how it gets used. “A federal definition alone would not automatically create new enforcement risk,” he said. “If it remains primarily a research or policy concept, it could influence public perception and potentially provide support for litigation theories, but it would not itself create independent compliance obligations.”
What a federal definition could do, Sylvester said, is slow the spread of conflicting state rules. In 2025 alone, Arizona, Utah, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina and South Carolina all considered or advanced legislation defining or restricting ultra-processed foods, frequently leaning on additive based tests that diverge from NOVA. California has gone further still, becoming the first state to write its own ultra-processed definition into law as part of a ban on such foods in school meals, though it has not yet specified which foods are the most concerning. “A federal definition could provide a common reference point for policymakers and promote greater consistency across jurisdictions,” Sylvester said, while cautioning that states would remain free to diverge unless federal law expressly or impliedly preempts them.
That is the tension sitting underneath the RFI comments. Public health groups want a definition anchored in NOVA because that is the system their research already relies on. Pediatricians, city health departments and consumer advocates want something that also weighs nutrients, worried that processing alone sweeps in fortified cereals and yogurt alongside soda. Industry groups want regulators to slow down and tie any definition to measurable health outcomes rather than manufacturing technique. FDA and USDA now have to choose among them, knowing that whatever they pick will likely shape labeling rules, school nutrition standards and dietary guidance for years to come.