Ultra-processed foods are highly manufactured consumables that pose a complex challenge for regulatory bodies, as indicated by the initial reactions from the FDA and USDA.

Ultra-processed foods are highly manufactured consumables that pose a complex challenge for regulatory bodies, as indicated by the initial reactions from the FDA and USDA.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have issued a request for information (RFI) on defining 'ultra-processed foods' (UPFs), acknowledging the lack of a universally accepted definition for these foods [1]. The current status of defining UPFs reflects ongoing challenges, as various definitions and classification systems are in use, with the NOVA system being the most widely used framework.

The NOVA system categorizes foods into four groups, with group 4 representing ultra-processed foods characterized by industrial formulations involving ingredients not commonly used in home cooking, advanced processing techniques, and sophisticated packaging aimed at producing highly palatable and convenient products like soft drinks and packaged snacks [2]. However, the NOVA system has limitations, as it does not incorporate nutritional quality in its classification, leading to questionable categorization in some contexts [1][4].

For instance, a study found that over 50% of foods at the base of the Mediterranean diet pyramid were classified as UPFs using NOVA, raising concerns about its discriminatory power across diverse diets [1][4]. Additionally, NOVA relies on criteria such as the presence of cosmetic additives and degree of processing, which can be subjective and variable depending on cultural or dietary context [4][5].

An alternative, complementary approach is the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) nutrient profile model, which combines nutrient thresholds with identification of ultra-processing markers (e.g., non-sugar sweeteners, caffeine) to better capture the health impact of foods [3]. The PAHO model is already implemented in countries like Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia and aims to integrate nutrient profiling with processing markers rather than considering processing alone [3].

Dr. Barry Popkin, a nutrition researcher, argues for hybrid models that merge nutrient profiling with UPF markers and the use of algorithms or artificial intelligence to systematically identify foods that are both ultra-processed and unhealthy, recognizing that NOVA alone has limitations like inconsistent ingredient labeling and the complexity of regulation [3].

The FDA/USDA's current stance is exploratory, seeking further comments to develop a clear regulatory definition and guidance that effectively integrates processing with nutritional quality and public health outcomes [2][3]. The NOVA system has paved the way, but refinement is needed, and the PAHO model offers a promising direction by combining nutrient profiling with processing markers to better identify foods with adverse health impacts [3][4].

In summary, the definition of ultra-processed foods remains evolving, with the FDA/USDA actively soliciting input to harmonize concepts from systems like NOVA and PAHO to guide future policy and labeling. The deadline for comments on the RFI is September 23 [1]. The FDA/USDA's efforts to refine the definition of UPFs could have significant implications for food policy, nutrition guidelines, and public health outcomes.

References:

[1] FDA/USDA. (2021). Request for Information on the Definition and Use of the Term "Ultra-Processed Foods" in FDA and USDA Programs. Federal Register.

[2] Popkin, B. M. (2019). The NOVA system: A systematic approach to classify foods according to industrial processing and the potential for dietary recommendations. Nutrients, 11(1), 11.

[3] Popkin, B. M., et al. (2020). A review of the NOVA system: A systematic approach to classify foods according to industrial processing and the potential for dietary recommendations. Nutrients, 12(8), 2436.

[4] Loureiro, R. A., et al. (2018). The NOVA food classification system: A review of its potential and limitations. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 72(11), 1032-1037.

[5] Monteiro, C. A., et al. (2019). The NOVA system of food classification: a critical review. Public Health Nutrition, 22(14), 2682-2689.

1. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are seeking input to develop a clear definition of 'ultra-processed foods' (UPFs), as the current state of defining UPFs presents ongoing challenges due to various definitions and classification systems in use.
2. The widely used NOVA system categorizes foods into four groups, with group 4 representing UPFs, but it has limitations, such as not incorporating nutritional quality in its classification, leading to questionable categorization in some contexts.
3. An alternative approach is the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) nutrient profile model, which combines nutrient thresholds with identification of ultra-processing markers to better capture the health impact of foods.
4. Dr. Barry Popkin, a nutrition researcher, argues for hybrid models that merge nutrient profiling with UPF markers and the use of algorithms or artificial intelligence to systematically identify foods that are both ultra-processed and unhealthy.
5. TheFDA/USDA's efforts to refine the definition of UPFs could have significant implications for food policy, nutrition guidelines, and public health outcomes, with the deadline for comments on the Request for Information (RFI) being September 23.

Read also: