Thirty-two public health and nutrition organizations and 52 researchers and advocates have filed joint comments to the federal government’s Request for Information on how to define ultra-processed food, or UPF.
“The evidence base is more than sufficient for regulatory action on UPFs that are harmful to health,” they said in their submittal. “A new regulatory definition will lay the groundwork for policies that could comprehensively improve diet quality and related health outcomes.”
One of the groups, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, or CSPI, a nutrition and food safety watchdog group, said in a separate submittal on the topic that UPF needs to be defined as processed foods with any of six characteristics. They include high unhealthy nutrient density, such as excess sugar, sodium, or saturated fat; high calorie density; processed meat; sweetened beverages; processed refined carbohydrates; and ingredients strongly linked to cancer or other serious health concerns such as sodium nitrate.
These characteristics have been linked to a wide range of adverse health outcomes including weight gain, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the CSPI said.
The CSPI’s comment also recommends that the government consider defining an alternative term such as “harmful processed food.” It said that the term “ultra-processed” implies “very” or “extremely” processed, but since the extent, type, or purpose of processing doesn’t relate to whether or not a food presents health risks, the term isn’t precise for describing processed foods linked to health concerns.
The RFI was issued by the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In addition, the comment from the CSPI includes recommendations for regulating UPF, stating:
Once the agencies finalize their definition, the government should explore taxes, marketing restrictions, warning labels, and federal procurement restrictions on certain UPF.
Such policies must be considered with a focus on protecting vulnerable groups, such as children, without exacerbating food insecurity, poverty, and inequality; must be accompanied by sufficient resources and technical assistance; and must be implemented with adequate lead time, to facilitate successful implementation.
The CSPI’s comment also includes a list of policy actions that FDA and USDA can take to address harmful processed foods even before finalizing a new uniform definition of UPF. They include issuing a final rule on mandatory front-of-package nutrition labeling and overhauling the food chemical regulatory system by closing the Generally Recognized As Safe or GRAS, loophole.
“Assuming the government adopts a strong, evidence-based definition of UPF that captures processed foods clearly linked to health concerns, the new definition will lay the groundwork for policies that could comprehensively improve diet quality and related health outcomes,” Eva Greenthal, CSPI senior policy scientist, said in a statement.
But a definition gets food health and safety nowhere unless it’s incorporated into policy, Greenthal said.
“Secretary Kennedy talks a good game when it comes to sticking it to Big Food, but it remains to be seen whether he’s up to the task of regulating the industry he claims is poisoning American children,” she added
