Food Regulation Developments: Struggles to Define Ultraprocessed Foods

Summary

State legislatures and federal agencies are showing a strong interest in defining and regulating ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), although no uniform definition has emerged. While federal agencies consider whether and how to develop a science-based definition of “ultraprocessed,” states are enacting legislation that directly regulates UPFs or ingredients commonly associated with UPFs. A bill introduced recently in California (A.B. 2244) would further this trend by creating a “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal. Food manufacturers and other stakeholders should follow this bill closely to see whether it becomes law and whether other states pursue similar legislation.

What Are Ultraprocessed Foods?

The term ”ultraprocessed food” is a growing focus of state legislation, federal regulation, and public health advocacy. However, states, federal agencies, and science organizations have not reached consensus on what UPFs are or are not.

The most common definition of UPFs originated from the NOVA food classification system. Created in 2010, NOVA focuses primarily on food’s degree of processing. The NOVA system defines UPFs as industrially formulated products made of many ingredients that have little to no culinary use or whose function is to make a product more palatable. Foods are categorized as unprocessed and minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, or ultraprocessed foods and drinks.

The NOVA definition has shortcomings. When assigning a classification, the system does not consider a food’s nutritional quality. Thus, foods that require processing, such as yogurt or flour, may be classified as ultraprocessed even when they are nutrient-dense. Further, NOVA does not consider whether an ingredient itself may be harmful or negatively affect a product’s nutritional value. It only focuses on whether an ingredient serves a processing function.

Other attempts at defining UPFs have focused on a food product’s ingredients rather than its processing. The distinction between processing-based and ingredients-based definitions has become an important consideration in efforts to regulate UPFs, as different definitions may classify the same product differently.

Efforts to Define UPFs

FDA

The federal government has not adopted or even proposed a uniform definition of UPFs, but it has indicated interest in doing so. In September 2025, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission released its final Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy Report. The report highlighted the administration’s intention to create a federal definition of “ultraprocessed foods.” Since then, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and U.S. Department of Agriculture have issued a joint Request for Information (RFI) to develop a federal definition of “ultraprocessed food” for future research and policy development.

The RFI background section underscores the difficulties associated with defining UPFs for policy and research development. Commenters were asked to address what factors should be considered when defining UPFs, how ingredient amounts should affect whether a food is characterized as ultraprocessed, which processing methods should be considered ultraprocessing, and related issues. This broad set of questions suggests the agencies are attempting to develop a nuanced, science-based definition of UPFs that can be applied consistently to all types of foods.

The RFI received over 5,100 comments from individuals, food manufacturers, universities, and associations. Many science organizations expressed concerns over an oversimplified, non-science-based definition of UPFs, as did industry commenters. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) highlighted that context matters for food ingredients and processing steps, and recommended against classifying products as UPFs in isolation. The benefits of an ingredient, including its nutritional composition and intended function in the product, should also be considered. The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) requested that the UPF definition distinguish and separately assess a product’s processing from its formulation when determining a product’s classification. ASN also discussed the importance of a uniform UPF definition, as current inconsistencies have hindered scientific research on UPFs and generated consumer confusion. Organizations whose food products risk being categorized as UPFs, including the Whole Grain Connection and National Pasta Association, recommended that UPF classification should be tied to the nutritional content of the overall product, not its processing steps or ingredients.

The agencies have not taken further public action on defining “ultraprocessed food” since the RFI comment period ended in October 2025. The current Regulatory Agenda does not include rulemaking related to UPFs. That absence may suggest the federal government is taking additional time to ensure the definition of UPFs is grounded in sound science, or that the agencies have decided not to move forward with defining UPFs at this time, or that HHS has determined that the topic does not merit listing in the Regulatory Agenda.

California

In 2025, California enacted the Real Foods, Healthy Kids Act (A.B. 1264). The Act created the nation’s first statutory definition of “ultraprocessed foods” and established a statewide framework to phase out certain “ultraprocessed foods of concern” from schools beginning in 2029. The Real Food, Healthy Kids Act expansively defines “ultraprocessed foods” to include any food or beverage that contains a substance listed in FDA’s Substances Added to Food database that has both certain FDA-defined technical effects and “high amounts” (as defined in the bill) of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar. Under California’s definition, products with surface-active agents, stabilizers, thickeners, aerating agents, colors, emulsifiers, flavors, or artificial sweeteners may be classified as an UPF. See our previous alert discussing the law here.

Legislation proposed in 2026, A.B. 2244, would build off California’s Real Food, Healthy Kids Act by establishing a first-of-its-kind certification standard for non-ultraprocessed foods. If enacted, the bill would task the California Department of Public Health with creating the “California Certified” seal and accrediting agents to certify eligible products by June 1, 2028. Agents would be prohibited from certifying any products that are within the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act’s definitions of “ultraprocessed food,” “ultraprocessed food of concern,” or a “restricted school food.” The bill would require a publicized list of all certified products, recertification of products every three years, and recertification of reformulated products within thirty days.

A.B 2244 would also affect grocery retailers. Grocery stores with gross annual sales over $10 million would have to ensure that three or more certified non-ultraprocessed items are “clearly identifiable” if the store sells more than twenty-five certified items.

As of July 1, 2026, A.B. 2244 had passed the California Assembly, moved to the Senate, and been re-referred to the California Senate Appropriations Committee for approval.

Arizona

Also in 2025, Arizona enacted the Arizona Healthy Schools Act (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-242.01), which bans the selling or serving of UPFs on public school campuses. While this law resembles California’s Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, it presents a more aggressive regulatory scheme with a narrower definition of UPFs and a quicker school phaseout timeline that begins in the 2026-2027 school year. The Act defines UPFs as food or beverages that contain one or more of eleven listed ingredients. The list includes chemicals such as potassium bromate, propylparaben, titanium dioxide, brominated vegetable oil, and synthetic petroleum-based dyes such as yellow dyes 5 and 6, blue dyes 1 and 2, green dye 3, red dyes 3 and 40.

Other States

Legislation similar to California’s was introduced but not enacted in various states in 2025 and 2026. In Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Kentucky, the bills died in committee. In Arkansas, a similar bill died in the chamber, and the Louisiana governor vetoed a similar bill.

In 2025, a bill was introduced in Massachusetts that would limit school districts from providing meals composed of over 20% ultra-processed ingredients (H.B. 4562). The bill would define “ultra-processed food” as foods containing industrial formulations of substances not often used in kitchens, or additives used to make a food product more appealing or preservable. In October 2025, the bill was referred to the Massachusetts House Ways and Means Committee. The bill remains viable but, absent further action, will expire when the Massachusetts legislative session ends on July 31, 2026.

Efforts to Regulate UPFs Indirectly

Parallel to efforts to define and target UPFs directly, FDA and many state legislatures are also indirectly regulating UPFs by targeting some of the food ingredients routinely included in various definitions of “ultraprocessed.”

FDA

Federal activity seeking to limit synthetic food dyes and additives has contributed to the indirect regulation of UPFs. FDA has taken various actions to eliminate or reduce the use of color additives that are not naturally derived. It has moved to revoke approvals for or phase out synthetic food dyes. See our previous alert on the topic here. Pursuant to FDA’s initiative to phase out certain food dyes, the agency has published a table tracking voluntary pledges by actors in the food industry to remove or replace petroleum-based food dyes. Color additive regulations were recently updated to include naturally derived food dyes, beetroot red and spirulina extract. Also, FDA sent a letter to the food industry stating the agency will exercise enforcement discretion regarding potentially misleading label claims.

Advocacy groups are also utilizing existing federal regulatory pathways for food additives to potentially alter approvals for food additives. For example, FDA accepted two citizen petitions from the Environmental Defense Fund to amend and remove specific solvents from food additive and color additive regulations. In contrast, FDA has denied a citizen petition seeking to limit per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in certain foods. FDA has also started using its Post-Market Assessment Tool to proactively review chemical additives that were previously determined to be a safe food additives under the GRAS process. FDA announced a comprehensive reassessment for butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) in February 2026, and reassessments for butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and azodicarbonamide in July 2026. See our previous alert here.

States

Texas and Louisiana have enacted laws that require warning labels for food products that contain any of forty-four listed ingredients. See our alerts here and here. The listed ingredients include food additives such as BHA and BHT, synthetic dyes, and in Louisiana’s case, artificial sweeteners. Although a court blocked the Texas law, the Louisiana law has not been challenged and will go into effect on January 1, 2028. Similar bills have been introduced in other states but have not been enacted.

Numerous states have enacted laws prohibiting artificial food dyes and additives. In June 2025, Texas enacted S.B. 314, which prohibited the use of seventeen additives in school meals effective September 1, 2026. In West Virginia, H.B. 2354, a law banning seven food dye additives from school lunch programs was enacted and later enjoined by a district court. However, similar laws will go into effect in Iowa (H.F. 2676) in July 2027 and in California (A.B. 2316) in December 2027.

Conclusion

California’s A.B. 2244 reflects a broader trend towards regulating UPFs and commonly associated ingredients. As FDA takes more time to consider a science-based definition, state legislatures may continue to advance their own approaches that could create conflicting regulatory schemes with no requirement for scientific grounding. Companies should monitor developments in the regulation of UPFs and commonly associated ingredients at the federal and state level. When opportunities to provide comment arise, companies should consider submitting comments to support regulations that are workable, cohesive, and science-based.