As the US tries to define ultra-processed foods (UPFs), each state is taking its own approach. A recent analysis from NYU’s Food is Medicine Institute and Tufts’ Friedman School shows 17 states have created laws around UPFs, especially focusing on school foods. However, these definitions mainly target specific ingredients and don’t cover most UPFs, limiting their potential health impact.
For example, Pennsylvania’s proposed definition aligns with the Nova guidelines, identifying UPFs by their content of certain additives. Massachusetts has taken a similar route, including harmful additives like nitrates and nitrites found in processed meats. These additives have been linked to serious health issues, including cancer and cardiovascular diseases.
Jennifer Pomeranz, an associate professor at NYU’s School of Global Public Health, expressed concern over the narrow definitions emerging from states like Arizona and California. Arizona’s definition only considers foods with 11 additives, while California’s law allows reformulated foods that might still contain unhealthy ingredients, as long as they aren’t high in sugar, salt, or fat. This creates loopholes that food companies might exploit, leading to what Pomeranz calls “frankenfoods,” which may meet nutrient profiles but lack real nutritional value.
Research indicates that UPFs can lead to weight gain and other health problems, even if they seem low in sugar or fat. Studies show that over 80 cohorts have linked UPFs to health issues beyond just these common culprits.
In contrast, Massachusetts’ definition stands out because it captures a wider range of harmful additives and aligns closely with Nova’s classification system. This is important because it recognizes that not all processed foods are equal; some might be far from healthy even if they seem to meet specific nutrient criteria.
The FDA is also working on a unified definition for UPFs, collaborating with the Department of Agriculture to help consumers choose healthier diets. However, scrutiny remains about the effectiveness of the FDA’s definitions, which miss important factors like certain industrial sweeteners and modified ingredients.
One major issue in the food industry is the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) loophole, allowing companies to self-affirm the safety of ingredients without FDA oversight. This means many ingredients may be added to the food supply without public knowledge, raising safety concerns. Pomeranz calls for closing this loophole to improve food safety evaluations.
Experts suggest the industry must acknowledge and reduce harmful UPFs in a way similar to how tobacco regulations were implemented due to its health risks. The aim is to prevent the 2.3 million annual deaths related to diets high in ultra-processed foods.
A thoughtful approach is essential in defining UPFs, balancing necessary regulations without overwhelming the food market. This ongoing conversation about food safety and definitions will likely shape the future of public health in the United States. For more details on health impacts associated with UPFs, you can refer to the JAMA Health Forum.
Source link
UPF Definition, Ultra-Processed Foods, Nova, US Food,
