Public Comments Highlight the Challenges of Defining Ultra-Processed Foods

The first wave of public comments responding to an FDA/USDA request for information (RFI) on defining “ultra-processed foods” has arrived, revealing the complexities that regulators face in establishing a coherent definition.

Although the agencies have yet to clarify how this definition may be utilized, the RFI emphasizes that a standardized definition would lead to greater consistency in both research and policy. This comes in light of various definitions cropping up from state legislatures; these range from broad descriptions like “industrial formulations of food substances never or rarely used in kitchens” to more precise definitions, such as a food or beverage containing at least one of a specific list of food additives, as seen in Florida legislation.

In the meantime, voluntary initiatives are beginning to take shape. Notably, high-profile brands like Amy’s Kitchen and Califia Farms are collaborating with the Non-UPF Project (led by Megan Westgate, founder of the Non-GMO Project) to create a third-party standard for the verification of non-ultra-processed foods, set to be unveiled this fall. [Read more at FoodNavigator-USA.]

The NOVA System: A Double-Edged Sword

The most widely recognized framework for categorizing processed foods is the NOVA system, developed in Brazil in 2009. This system classifies foods into four categories based on their processing and ingredient exposure.

However, the NOVA system faces criticism for its lack of nuance. Critics argue that it indiscriminately categorizes whole-grain breakfast cereals with added vitamins, fortified soy milk, and even whole-wheat bread alongside less nutritious items like candy and soft drinks. The RFI states, “Concerns have been raised about the full ability of UPF classification systems to accurately capture the characteristics of UPFs that may impact health.”

The document acknowledges that while there is an overlap between ultra-processed foods and those high in added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat, it’s crucial to avoid discouraging the intake of potentially beneficial foods when defining ultra-processed items. This is particularly vital as nearly 70% of children’s calories now come from UPFs, contributing to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions, according to a report by MAHA.

Voices in the Discussion

The deadline for comments is September 23, with many submissions so far made by individuals. Larger stakeholders, including trade associations and health advocacy groups, are expected to contribute more detailed inputs as the deadline nears. A notable voice in the discussion is Dr. Barry Popkin, a nutrition and obesity researcher. He has co-authored a paper in The Lancet that proposes defining foods that are both ultra-processed and high in added sugars, salts, or saturated fats.

Dr. Popkin suggests that the NOVA system could be enhanced using algorithms similar to those employed by global consumer platforms like Open Food Facts. Nevertheless, he cautions about the potential legal challenges due to inconsistent ingredient labeling and complexities in monitoring this classification.

One alternative, he proposes, is to “identify unhealthy foods as a whole,” employing criteria that merge nutrient thresholds established by nutrient profile models with identifiable UPF markers, akin to the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) nutrient profile model.

Public Sentiment: A Call for Clarity

Many comments submitted to the RFI are laden with subjective terms like “chemicals,” “natural,” and “real,” none of which have clear legal definitions. Respondent Eric Crawford argues for a classification based on “real food,” while Aaron Basinger claims that any food containing petroleum-derived ingredients is ultra-processed.

Further contributions define ultra-processed foods in various ways. For example, Christopher Perron describes them as foods that cannot be created in a natural environment, while Steven Pexton outlines a more technical definition focused on industrial formulation and synthetic additives.

Searching for a Nuanced Definition

Holly Hungerford suggests that the FDA and USDA may be better served by adopting a new term, such as “foods with low nutritional value,” to capture both ultra-processed and minimally processed foods that offer little to health outcomes. Similarly, registered dietitian Connie Diekman criticizes the NOVA classification for failing to consider nutritional value, which can lead to the exclusion of foods that provide significant benefits.

As the comment period continues, one thing is clear: defining ultra-processed foods is a complex undertaking. Stakeholders are urging for nuanced definitions that capture not just the processing but also the nutritional value of foods to better inform consumers and guide public health efforts.

Further Reading

• ‘Stunning’ MAHA report draws praise and fury: Stated goals undermined by GOP policies, say experts
• Chinova Bioworks rides MAHA wave, expands global footprint as more firms spurn synthetic preservatives
• RFK Jr: ‘He believes in nutrition, but MAHA and MAGA don’t really seem to square’

The post What is ultra-processed food? First wave of comments to FDA/USDA highlight minefield facing regulators appeared first on AgFunderNews.

This structured article utilizes appropriate HTML tags for easy integration into WordPress, improving clarity and readability.