Reaching a consistent definition of ultra-processed foods amid patchwork state legislation and independent certification remains difficult as researchers continue to untangle the roles of ingredients, processing, dietary patterns and health outcomes.
California is the first state to standardize a definition of ultra-processed foods and a voluntary “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal, potentially writing the blueprint for other states to pursue similar frameworks.
California’s move comes as the industry continues to grapple with the absence of a federal UPF definition. Last year, 15 states introduced legislation seeking to define UPFs, while the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) continue to develop and finalize a national definition.
Recap on California's non-UPF law
California’s law broadly defines UPF as any food or beverage that contains one or more ingredients with a “specific technical effect,” including surface-active agents; stabilizers and thickeners, propellants, aerating agents and gases; colors and coloring adjuncts; emulsifiers and emulsifier salts; flavoring agents and adjuvants; flavor enhancers – excluding spices and natural seasonings or flavorings; non-nutritive sweeteners.
It also defines UPFs as containing 10% or more total energy from saturated fat, a milligrams sodium to calorie ratio equal or greater than one to one, and 10% or more total energy from added sugars. Other substances that could trigger the UPF definition include D-sorbitol, erythritol, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates, isomalt, lactitol, monk fruit concentrate, maltitol, stevia glycosides, thaumatin and xylitol.
Qualifying foods will be determined by state-accredited third parties, which would need to be renewed at least every three years. The California Department of Public Health has until June 1, 2029, to identify the accreditors.
The challenge with defining UPFs
A growing patchwork of state definitions of ultra-processed food, research correlating UPFs with chronic health risks and third-party certification programs has raised questions about how UPFs should be identified, regulated and communicated to consumers. Beyond consumer understanding, fragmented definitions complicate how these foods will be qualified for school meals, nutrition assistance programs, reformulation efforts, front-of-pack labeling, nutrition research and future dietary guidance.
The challenge is that the term itself has become increasingly difficult to define and apply, according to Anna Rosales, senior vice president of government affairs and policy at IFT.
“The term ‘UPF’ as it is used today conflates processing and formulation, and increasingly we also have overlaying nutritional aspects,” Rosales said. “These are each distinct considerations that have different impacts on a food’s final actual nutritional composition.”
While scientists, policymakers and industry stakeholders broadly share the goal of improving public health, how ultra-processed foods should be defined or evaluated is where the industry is divided.
Rosales argues that many current approaches attempt to simplify a complex issue by combining processing, formulation and nutrition into a single category.
“The intention was to simplify, to make it easier for consumers,” she said. “But when we oversimplify, a lot of times we actually cause more confusion.”
Current definitions lean heavily on one factor
The UPF debate reflects a broader divide in how stakeholders qualify these foods. Processing methods, nutritional composition and dietary patterns are each actively studied by food scientists, policymakers and manufacturers. Yet, on their own they do not provide a complete picture of UPFs, Rosales said.
For example, relying on processing as a primary indicator of healthfulness overlooks the nuance required to understand how foods affect public health, Rosales argued.
“Whether you bake a cake at home or it’s baked in an industrial bakery, is that the difference that’s really going to impact the nutritional composition of that individual cake, or the public health impact?” Rosales said. “Or is it the ingredients that are in that cake which ultimately impact the final nutritional composition?”
The NOVA classification system, which helped introduce the UPF category, classifies foods based on their level of processing. However, NOVA’s system, critics argue, does not account for nutritional composition and groups together products with very different nutritional profiles and public health implications. Whole grain bread, for example, uses processing techniques for nutrient fortification.
California’s definition takes a different approach from NOVA. The state defines UPFs through nutritional criteria (sodium, saturated fat and added sugar limits) and an ingredient’s technical contribution, which includes processing-related materials like emulsifiers or additives. But, varying definitions across jurisdictions and certification programs could make consistent understanding harder for consumers, researchers and policymakers, Rosales said.
“Consumers think UPF is junk food,” she said. “When we try to take this vague consumer language and term and apply it to policies, science, public health recommendations, and use that to inform things, that’s where it becomes really messy.”
A complete UPF definition will need a ‘multidimensional risk framework’
Instead of focusing on a single attribute like processing or nutrition composition, Rosales advocates for what she describes as a multidimensional risk framework that evaluates foods across risk factors, including nutrient composition, ingredients, processing methods and broader environmental and cultural considerations.
“We all would agree that we want to improve the public health of individuals. That’s the goal,” Rosales said. “But we really need to look at what are the different dimensions or levels of risk of eating different types of food.”
To advance that framework, IFT submitted a proposal in June to the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization’s collection of international standards, Codex Alimentarius. The proposal aims to help create a system that evaluates interwoven risks associated with food categories and diet-related noncommunicable diseases. Rosales said IFT’s proposal could provide more consistency for future research, labeling initiatives and policy development.
“When we’re oversimplifying things, a lot of times we’re inadvertently limiting our solutions and innovation for the future,” she said. “That’s not what we need in a world that is increasingly complex.”
