Defining Ultra-Processed Foods
IFT calls for science-based definitions that focus on nutritional quality, not the degree of processing, to guide future food policy.
© Kwangmoozaa/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Few terms in food and nutrition policy generate more confusion or stronger opinions than “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs). The phrase appears in scientific journals, media reports, and public debates, yet no shared definition exists. Without a clear, science-based framework, the conversation risks oversimplifying a complex issue and stigmatizing safe, nutrient-dense foods that play an essential role in healthy diets.
Recognizing this gap, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently issued a Request for Information to help define what constitutes an ultra-processed food. It was an important first step toward grounding the discussion in evidence rather than perception.
IFT responded to that call by convening experts across our scientific membership, including those from academia, regulatory science, industry, and public health, to ensure a balanced, multidisciplinary perspective. Through focused meetings with several of IFT’s technical divisions, our Codex Advisory Committee, and IFT’s Science and Policy Initiatives team, members developed a consensus response that reflects both scientific rigor and practical application.
At the heart of IFT’s comments is a clear message: Definitions should focus on nutritional quality, not the degree of processing.
IFT’s Science-Based Recommendations
1. Limitations of current UPF classifications
Existing systems broadly categorize foods by processing intensity without considering nutritional composition, which can lead to misclassification of nutrient-dense foods such as whole-grain bread and yogurt as ultra-processed. The term “ultra-processed” can be stigmatizing and lacks scientific precision. As noted in the 2025 Scientific Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, there is ongoing discussion about how best to address UPFs in the context of dietary guidance. Ensuring consistency between future definitions and federal nutrition policy will be essential to avoid unintended impacts on nutrition assistance programs and public health recommendations.
2. Essential roles of food processing
Processing plays a vital role in ensuring food safety, extending shelf life, enhancing nutrient availability, improving taste and texture, increasing accessibility, and supporting food security. IFT recommends that future definitions emphasize nutrient content, recognize the benefits of processing, and avoid stigmatizing language. The focus should be on nutritional imbalances rather than processing alone.
3. Ingredient considerations
Ingredients should be evaluated in context, considering their function and nutritional contribution rather than their presence alone. Ingredients such as added fibers, vitamins, minerals, flavors, and colors often serve beneficial roles and should not automatically categorize a food as ultra-processed. The amount of an ingredient is not a reliable indicator of either processing level or health impact.
4. Conflation of processing and formulation
Many UPF systems confuse processing—the steps used to make food—with formulation, or the ingredients and amounts used. Because food labels list ingredients but not processing methods, most systems rely on formulation to define “ultra-processed.” Future definitions should clearly distinguish between the two.
5. Processing methods are not definitive markers
Physical, biological, and chemical processes such as cutting, fermentation, pasteurization, and pH adjustment contribute to food safety, quality, and nutrition. No single processing technique should define ultra-processed food. The focus should remain on the safety, composition, and nutritional value of the final product.
6. Terminology recommendations
The term “ultra-processed” is imprecise and potentially stigmatizing. Alternatives that focus on nutritional quality, such as “high in fat, sugar, or salt (HFSS),” or that emphasize formulation over processing, may better capture key concerns and align with existing dietary guidance. Clear, evidence-based terminology is essential for effective communication with consumers.
7. Nutritional attributes in definitions
Nutrient content and density should be central when defining foods for dietary guidance, rather than the degree of processing. While energy density and palatability may influence consumption patterns, these characteristics alone should not be used to categorize foods, since many nutrient-dense foods are also energy-rich, and enjoyable foods support healthy, sustainable diets.
8. Policy integration considerations
Definitions should be science-based, flexible, and aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to avoid misclassifying nutrient-dense, fortified, or affordable foods. Policy decisions must consider cultural, economic, and behavioral contexts to ensure equitable access and to avoid unintended consequences in nutrition and food assistance programs.
Advancing Science-Based Policy
As discussions around ultra-processed foods continue, IFT remains committed to advocating for a rigorous, evidence-informed approach that distinguishes between processing as a tool for safety and accessibility and the overall nutritional quality of foods that nourish people worldwide.
By engaging scientists across disciplines, IFT continues to help bridge the gap between research and regulation, ensuring that the language shaping future dietary policy reflects both scientific integrity and real-world impact.
IFT's Advocacy Resources
Food Additives & Sugar Alternatives Overviews
Ultra-Processed Foods Content Collection
White Paper: Sustainable Production of Nutritious Foods Through Processing Technology