Comments submitted to the agencies reveal a growing divide between public health groups that urge FDA and USDA to move quickly and industry organizations that argue existing frameworks are too broad.
More than 5,000 comments were submitted since FDA and USDA announced its Request for Information (RFI) for a federal ultra-processed food definition nearly a year ago.
A formal UPF definition could eventually help bring clarity around shaping federal nutrition programs and guidelines, food labeling policy and potentially close the gap between patchwork state legislative efforts targeting processed foods – or it could disrupt the food system, according to critics.
From a legal perspective, one of the biggest challenges will be producing an objective, science-based definition that can be consistently applied across the industry, according to Brian Sylvester, partner at law firm Morrison Foerster’s FDA & Healthcare Regulatory and Compliance Group.
“As FDA and USDA recognized in their 2025 Request for Information, there is no single accepted framework for defining ultra-processed foods. Existing approaches variously emphasize processing techniques, ingredients and nutritional characteristics,” Sylvester explained.
A federal definition would need to objectively align with benchmarks for stakeholders (i.e. regulators, industry, researchers and consumers), while curbing the possibility of fragmented state-by-state requirements, he noted.
The comments submitted by industry groups and health organizations fell into three camps: those urging FDA to adopt the NOVA framework; those supporting a hybrid definition that considers both processing and nutritional value; and groups that argue food processing alone doesn’t reflect the nutritional quality of a food.
NOVA supporters urge FDA to move quickly
The NOVA classification system provides a framework on processing in foods rather than its nutrient value. Critics call for a reform of the system, arguing that it is too simplistic and misses quantifiable data. NOVA correlates high UPF-consumption to diet-related diseases.
Environmental Working Group and the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation support the agencies’ adoption of NOVA as the framework to define UPFs.
EWG urged FDA to establish a formal definition of UPFs and argued that consumers need clearer ways – namely through labeling and transparency frameworks – to identify these foods. The organization doubled down on existing research linking UPF consumption to chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation argued that a growing body of research has linked UPF consumption with increased risk of Crohn’s disease, greater disease activity and higher chances of flare-ups among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Because many of those studies already rely on NOVA, the group urged the agencies to adopt the classification system so research remains consistent and comparable over time.
The foundation warned that a new UPF definition could create an “unusable” public health framework and delay efforts to educate the public on disease prevention.
Public health organizations favor a middle ground
Although several groups acknowledged possible health concerns surrounding UPFs, they argued that basing a UPF definition on NOVA alone may be too simplistic for policymaking.
The American Academy of Pediatrics said a workable definition should account not only for processing but also for nutrient composition, including sodium, saturated fat, added sugars, artificial colors and flavors and energy density. The organization pointed out that some fortified foods categorized as ultra-processed, such as certain breakfast cereals, may deliver valuable nutrients and contribute to healthy dietary patterns.
Similarly, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene said FDA should consider ingredients, nutrient levels and processing methods together when determining what constitutes a UPF. The department pointed specifically to ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup, artificial colors, low- and no-calorie sweeteners, bromates and preservatives as potentially concerning. It also argued that processed meats should be included in any UPF framework, underscoring ingredient-based criteria alone does not capture health outcomes.
The UK Department of Health and Social Care referenced reviews conducted by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition which found that NOVA’s ultra-processed category encompasses foods widely viewed as unhealthy (i.e. soft drinks and confectionery) and foods considered nutritious (i.e. fortified foods, low-fat yogurts and higher-fiber breakfast cereals). Because evidence varies considerably across different UPF categories, the UK suggested that nutrient profiling may be a more practical policy approach than relying solely on UPF classifications.
Consumer Reports highlighted infant formula and medical foods, arguing those categories should not receive blanket exemptions from any future UPF definition. The consumer group cited research suggesting that many infant formulas contain substantial amounts of refined sugars such as corn syrup solids and maltodextrin.
Industry and food-sector groups push back on NOVA
Commodity groups and food-science organizations argued that processing should not be confused with health outcomes.
The International Food Information Council, Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, USA Rice Federation, National Sorghum Producers, National Pork Board, American Meat Science Association and European Food Emulsifiers Manufacturers Association all criticized aspects of NOVA.
The National Pork Board argued that processed pork products deliver nutrient-dense sources of protein, vitamins and minerals and warned that some plant-based meat alternatives may be more processed than pork products.
The American Meat Science Association argued that processing is on a spectrum and pointed out that ingredients such as nitrates, nitrites, sodium lactate and salt perform important food-safety functions. The group stated that “processing and healthfulness are independent topics.”
The European Food Emulsifiers Manufacturers Association defended emulsifiers as safe ingredients that improve texture, shelf life and product stability, arguing that NOVA unfairly excludes these foods simply because they contain emulsifiers.
Meanwhile, the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences urged FDA to develop a science-based classification framework rooted in measurable health outcomes rather than broad assumptions about processing, while sorghum and rice groups emphasized that processing can improve food safety, accessibility and nutrient availability.
Definition could influence future state action
While it’s unclear how FDA and USDA will implement the final definition, Sylvester said the legal consequences will depend heavily on how the definition is applied.
“A federal definition alone would not automatically create new enforcement risk. The legal significance depends on how the definition is ultimately used. 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,” Sylvester explained.
He noted that concern over a growing patchwork of state legislation may be one reason FDA and USDA are seeking a federal definition.
In 2025, states including Arizona, Utah, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina and South Carolina considered or advanced legislation defining or restricting UPFs, often using additive-based definitions contrasting from the NOVA framework commonly used in public health research.
“A federal definition could provide a common reference point for policymakers and promote greater consistency across jurisdictions,” he said.
Sylvester added, “Even if it does not preempt state law, a federal definition would likely influence future state legislative efforts by providing a common reference point, although states would remain free to adopt different approaches unless federal law expressly or impliedly preempts them.”
