| Go-To Guide: |
|
Where Things Stand
In July 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a joint Request for Information seeking data to develop a “uniform definition” of ultra-processed foods. The agencies said a uniform definition would allow for consistency in research and policy and “pave the way for addressing health concerns associated with the consumption of UPFs.” The comment period closed on Oct. 23, 2025, and drew more than 5,000 comments.
On Aug. 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and USDA announced that they had submitted a proposed UPF definition to OMB for final review. As of Oct. 13, 2026, the text had not been released. The agencies have described it as a “white paper,” rather than a regulation, consistent with earlier statements that the definition would be introduced as a research tool rather than through formal rulemaking. HHS has described the goal as creating “a stronger foundation for future nutrition research.”
OMB’s public calendar lists a series of meetings under Executive Order 12866 concerning the “White Paper: Proposed Definition of Ultra-Processed Food” through September and into October 2026. These meetings are one of the last formal opportunities to put data and perspective in front of decision-makers before the definition is published. Once published, attention will likely shift to how agencies, legislatures, and other policymakers incorporate the definition into nutrition programs, procurement requirements, labeling frameworks, and other policy initiatives.
Why the Coming Federal Definition of UPF Could Have Effects Beyond Research
A federal UPF definition might become a benchmark for regulating, litigating, and marketing products associated with the term. It could influence food labeling, school nutrition standards, food procurement, and broader nutrition guidance. The agencies’ description of the proposal as a research-focused white paper does not determine whether or how it may be used later in policymaking, regulatory activity, or litigation.
The definition’s scope will depend on the criteria it adopts. Those criteria could include processing methods, ingredients, nutrient profiles, or a combination of factors, affecting which products fall within the description.
The Definition Will Enter an Active Policy and Litigation Landscape
State legislation
California’s AB 1264, signed in 2025, established the nation’s first statutory definition of ultra-processed foods for school food programs. The law requires vendor reporting beginning in 2028 and prohibits the sale of designated “ultra-processed foods of concern” in schools beginning July 1, 2032. California has also authorized a voluntary “Non-UPF” certification label for qualifying foods. Other states, including Texas, Louisiana, Arizona and Florida, have pursued ingredient-disclosure, warning-label, and school-meal initiatives.
Government enforcement and litigation
In December 2025, the San Francisco city attorney sued 10 major food manufacturers under California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance law. The complaint alleges that ultra-processed foods contributed to a public health crisis and seeks restitution, civil penalties, and other remedies.
State attorneys general also use consumer-protection authorities to review food labeling, ingredient disclosures, and health-related marketing claims. In 2026, for example, the Texas attorney general opened multiple investigations involving “heart healthy” claims, food ingredients, and related consumer disclosures. A federal UPF definition could be one reference point in future investigations or litigation.
Private litigation
In UPF-related personal-injury cases, plaintiffs have faced challenges establishing causation, rather than correlation alone. A federal definition might be cited in future consumer-protection or labeling claims. Separately, marketing terms such as “natural,” “clean,” and “no artificial” continue to appear in class-action litigation.
Related federal action
The UPF definition is moving alongside FDA’s proposed rule concerning mandatory GRAS notifications, a pending front-of-package nutrition labeling rule, and an updated framework for “healthy” claims.
Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholders currently engaging include academics, public health advocates, trade associations, and industry representatives. Companies can provide product-specific information about formulation, ingredient functionality, nutrition, and consumer use. Trade associations can also provide a sector-wide perspective. Such information can inform decision-makers about practical applications and potential implementation issues.
Business Issues to Monitor
- Product scope: How products are categorized under existing frameworks, including NOVA and California AB 1264, so you understand which products could fall inside a federal definition.
- Stakeholder process: The timing and format of opportunities to provide input, including Executive Order 12866 meetings and future engagement at the Federal and State levels.
- Labeling and marketing claims: The basis and substantiation for claims such as “healthy,” “natural,” “clean,” “minimally processed,” “no artificial,” and other health-related statements.
- State developments. Legislation that references or incorporates a UPF definition.
- Records and coordination: Formulation and substantiation records, and coordination among regulatory, research and development, marketing, and legal teams.