Congress debates defining ultraprocessed foods
Congress debates defining ultraprocessed foods as FDA delays final rule. Learn about GRAS transparency and the push for clearer food labeling standards.
The FDA’s delay in defining ultraprocessed foods may lead to Congress taking action. The agency was set to release a definition on Monday but instead announced a proposal to add transparency to the ingredients approval process known as Generally Recognized As Safe, or GRAS.
Agency officials have submitted a proposed definition to the White House for review, but it’s not legally binding and should be interpreted as guidance instead of an enforceable rule.
Definition Challenges
There is no global standard for ultraprocessed foods, which typically refer to items made through industrial processing or food containing additives, such as artificial flavors or added sugars.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. has looked to formalize a definition of ultraprocessed foods in a move that could lay the groundwork for further regulation on chips, sodas, and other packaged offerings.
Last month, the FDA’s acting head of food admitted that creating a definition has proved “quite challenging,” though added it’s still a “priority” for the agency.
Congressional Action
In a statement, HHS encouraged Congress to build on its efforts around ultraprocessed foods and ingredients transparency “through legislation that further strengthens the safety of the American food supply.”
Congress has moved on two food label bills that could set up clashing definitions of ultraprocessed foods. A proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders would require warning labels for ultraprocessed foods, defining the term as a food or beverage containing one or more industrial ingredients with exemptions for items considered “healthy” under FDA rules.
Another proposal from Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Cory Booker would require the FDA to come up with its own definition of terms including “ultraprocessed,” “not ultraprocessed” and “natural.”
Related: Half of Food and Beverage SKUs Are Not Selling
State-Level Action
States have also charged ahead with creating their own interpretations, with California enacting the first legal definition of ultraprocessed foods in the U.S. last year.
Under the law, the state defines ultraprocessed foods as items containing at least one additive, or high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar.
The food industry has vigorously fought against a definition of ultraprocessed foods. The Consumer Brands Association said in a statement that any definition “lacks a sound scientific foundation” and will create consumer confusion and higher grocery costs.
Rhonda Bentz, executive vice president of public affairs, said in a statement, “America’s packaged food supply is safe and has been a staple in American households for decades. That’s something that a guidance document, crafted without credible experts, cannot change.”
Many of the proposed definitions in the U.S. focus on the presence of additives or the degree of industrial processing. However, in both cases, items like yogurt, tofu, and whole grain bread would be included in many of those definitions.
Instead, some in the food science community are pushing for regulators to focus on nutritional quality. The Institute of Food Technologists said ingredients should be evaluated in context of their function and nutrition content.
“Processing plays a vital role in ensuring food safety, extending shelf life, enhancing nutrient availability, improving taste and texture, increasing accessibility, and supporting food security,” IFT Vice President of Science and Policy Anna Rosales said in a statement last year.
The focus should be on nutritional imbalances rather than processing alone, according to Rosales. This approach could lead to a more full understanding of ultraprocessed foods and their impact on public health.
