Here’s a strange truth about the food you eat: as of today, there is still no official U.S. government definition of “ultra-processed food.”
The term is everywhere — headlines, studies, your neighbor’s very confident social media posts. But no federal agency has formally said what it means. We have federal definitions for “organic.” For “gluten-free.” For the thing researchers keep linking to chronic disease? Nothing.
That’s finally changing. And it is getting messy.
The request that opened the floodgates
On July 25, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and the USDA jointly issued a Request for Information asking how ultra-processed food should be defined. The comment window stayed open through late October. According to trade outlet FoodNavigator, more than 5,000 comments came in.
They did not agree with each other. The responses break into three camps.
Camp 1: Use NOVA
Groups including the Environmental Working Group and the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation want the FDA to adopt the NOVA classification system, which sorts food by degree of processing. It’s the framework most of the existing research already runs on. Change the yardstick, they argue, and you break comparability with the science.
Camp 2: Blend processing with nutrition
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the New York City Department of Health say processing alone isn’t the whole story. They want a hybrid definition that also weighs sodium, saturated fat, added sugars, artificial colors and flavors, and energy density.
They make a fair point I’ll concede: some fortified foods that classify as ultra-processed — certain breakfast cereals, for instance — do deliver real nutrients. My counter is that whole foods deliver them too, without the additive list.
Camp 3: Don’t do it at all
Industry groups pushed back hard. The International Food Information Council, the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, the USA Rice Federation, the National Sorghum Producers, the National Pork Board, the American Meat Science Association, and the European Food Emulsifiers Manufacturers Association all criticized aspects of NOVA.
Their core argument, in their own words: “processing and healthfulness are independent topics.” The National Pork Board argued that processed pork products deliver nutrient-dense sources of protein, vitamins, and minerals.
They’re not wrong that processing and safety aren’t the same question. I think they’re missing that cumulative processing burden is the thing worth measuring.
And an honest challenge from outside all three
Writing in Slate in July 2026, epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz argued that “ultra-processed” itself lacks a precise scientific definition and that NOVA’s categories are too blunt to carry the weight being put on them.
I don’t fully agree — but I’m not going to pretend the criticism doesn’t exist. A framework that can’t survive scrutiny isn’t worth building a company on.
Meanwhile, the states wrote their own
In 2025, states including Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, and South Carolina considered or advanced legislation defining or restricting ultra-processed foods. Arizona enacted its version. California moved on school meals.
Different definitions. Different thresholds. Different criteria. A food can be “ultra-processed” in one state and unremarkable in the next.
Here’s where I’ll be direct with you
This fight is going to take years. And while the agencies deliberate and the trade groups lobby and the lawyers bill, your food stays exactly the same. Same additives. Same processing. Same ingredients you can’t pronounce.
You do not have to wait for a federal definition to know what is in your grocery cart.
That is precisely why we built Rock The New Food Pyramid. The app uses NOVA-based scoring — the same framework the leading researchers use — combined with Gator Grade, our own score that weighs processing level, additive risk, ingredient quality, and nutritional density into one number.
Download Rock The New Food Pyramid. Scan your groceries. Know what you’re feeding your family.
They’re having a 5,000-comment debate. You have a barcode scanner. 🐊
References
Ataman, D. (2026, July 17). FDA and USDA face three-way fight over UPF definition. FoodNavigator. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2026/07/17/fda-weighs-competing-definitions-for-ultra-processed-foods/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, & U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2025, July 25). Ultra-processed foods; request for information. Federal Register, Docket No. FDA-2025-N-1793. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/25/2025-14089/ultra-processed-foods-request-for-information
Meyerowitz-Katz, G. (2026, July 12). What even is ultraprocessed food? Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2026/07/ultraprocessed-food-fda-label-vibes.html
MultiState. (2025, August 7). States move to define and restrict ultra-processed foods. https://www.multistate.us/insider/2025/8/7/states-move-to-define-and-restrict-ultra-processed-foods
Rock The New Food Pyramid — Scan. Know. Choose Better.