There’s been a great deal of discourse since the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced plans to create a federally-recognized, standard definition for ultra-processed foods (UPFs), within the context of addressing the role of diet in chronic disease. Many in the nutraceuticals industry are particularly concerned about how dietary supplements, functional foods, and functional beverages, which are health-promoting but require extensive processing, will align with this new federal definition and future public policy.

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) recently made its thoughts known in a response to the three agencies’ joint Request for Information, after convening its members from academia, regulatory science, the industry, and public health. After meetings with several of the organization’s technical divisions, Codex advisory committee, and the science and policy initiatives team, IFT made several recommendations that would create a definition more focused on nutritional quality than degree of processing, wrote Anna Rosales, vice president of science and policy at IFT.

Ensuring Nutritious Foods Aren’t Stigmatized

IFT warned that existing definitions for UPFs often classify nutritious foods, like yogurt or whole grain bread, as “ultra-processed,” and in the context of public policy, it’s important that these types foods aren’t excluded from nutrition assistance programs and public health recommendations.

The association also argued that food processing isn’t inherently detrimental to health, and can ensure food safety, extend shelf life, improve nutrient availability, improve taste and texture, and support food security. For that reason, IFT recommended avoiding “stigmatizing” language about food processing, and focusing more on nutritional imbalances. This also applies to added ingredients – fortifying foods with fibers, vitamins, minerals, flavors, and colors can often be beneficial. Similarly, one single processing method, like cutting, fermentation, pasteurization, or pH adjustment, shouldn’t come to define UPFs; safety, composition, and nutritional value should be more heavily weighted.

Future definitions should also clearly distinguish between processing, the steps used to make a food, with formulation, the ingredients and amounts used. Because food labels list ingredients and not processing methods, formulation is often used to define whether a food is ultra-processed.

IFT also noted that the term ultra-processed is imprecise, and alternative terms that focus on nutritional quality, like “high in fat, sugar, or salt,” or that emphasize formulation over processing, may better address concerns. And while calorically-dense, palatable foods may influence consumption patterns, these characteristics alone also shouldn’t be used as sole determinants.

To read IFT’s full comments, click here.