Most Americans have heard that "ultra-processed" foods are bad for them. Yet until now, the federal government has never officially defined what the term means. That is changing. In August 2026, federal health officials advanced a proposed definition of ultra-processed food, along with a separate proposal to tighten how new ingredients enter the food supply [1][2]. Both are central pieces of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) agenda.
Why a definition matters
Ultra-processed foods are generally understood to be industrial products made largely from extracted or modified ingredients, such as refined starches, sugars, oils and additives, often with flavors, colors or emulsifiers that are not used in home cooking. Common examples include many packaged snacks, sodas, sweetened cereals and ready-to-eat meals. These foods make up a large share of the American diet. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data cited by HHS, nearly 62% of the daily calories eaten by children and teens, and 53% of adults' calories, came from ultra-processed foods [1]. Research has linked high consumption to type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other conditions [1]. "Nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of ultra-processed foods," Kennedy said [1]. The problem for researchers and regulators has been the lack of a standard definition. Different studies use different classification systems, making results hard to compare. HHS says this has hindered consistent research across the federal government [1].
What has happened so far
In July 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) jointly asked the public for input on a uniform definition [2][4]. Officials say they received feedback from thousands of stakeholders, including food companies, researchers and consumer groups [1].
On August 3, 2026, the FDA sent a "White Paper: Proposed Definition of
Ultra-Processed Food" to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which reviews major federal actions [2]. HHS publicly announced the proposed definition on August 10 [1]. It is important to understand what kind of document this is. The white paper is not a regulation. By itself, it would not require food companies to change labels, reformulate products or stop selling anything [2]. Instead, it would set out the government's scientific and policy position and could serve as a reference for federal agencies, states and researchers. Binding measures, such as new labels, would require separate rulemaking [2]. Kennedy has said the definition could eventually support a red-yellow-green "traffic light" label on the front of food packages [2].
Closing the GRAS loophole
On the same day, HHS proposed a significant change to how food ingredients are approved. Since 1958, federal law has allowed substances that are "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, to be added to food without FDA premarket approval. Companies have been allowed to decide for themselves that an ingredient is GRAS and, in many cases, never notify the FDA at all. Critics have long called this a loophole that allows new chemicals into the food supply without government review. The proposed rule would require manufacturers to notify the FDA whenever they conclude that a substance added to human or animal food is GRAS, ending the purely voluntary system [1]. It would also expand the public inventory of GRAS notices and create a streamlined route for ingredients already on the market under company-made determinations, though deadlines have not yet been set [1]. "This action will bring greater transparency for consumers choosing their ingredients," said USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins [1]. Kyle Diamantas, the FDA's acting commissioner, said the rule would close "critical information gaps" [1].
Connection to the new dietary guidelines
These steps follow the release of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans on January 7, 2026 [3]. The guidelines, which shape school meals, military dining and other federal food programs, adopted "Eat Real Food" messaging and an updated food pyramid. They urge Americans to avoid "highly processed" packaged foods that are salty or sweet, including sugary drinks, and to limit artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes and artificial preservatives [3]. The guidelines also set higher protein targets, 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, recommended three servings of full-fat dairy daily and encouraged fat-rich whole foods. Despite earlier signals, they kept the longstanding limit on saturated fat at about 10% of daily calories [3]. Notably, the guidelines used the term "highly processed" rather than "ultra-processed," because the federal definition was still pending [3].
Reactions
Many nutrition researchers and consumer advocates have welcomed a standard definition and stronger GRAS oversight, which they have sought for years. Others caution that a definition based on processing rather than nutrients could lump together very different foods, such as whole-grain bread and candy, and say evidence on which specific features of processing cause harm is still developing. The food industry is watching closely. Analysts note that a broad definition could pressure companies to reformulate products and reduce refined sweeteners, starches, oils and additives, possibly affecting demand for corn-, soy-, dairy- and wheat-based ingredients. Producers of minimally processed foods could benefit [2]. Because the white paper does not regulate products, however, its immediate effect would be limited [2].
What comes next
The white paper's review at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has no legal deadline. Such reviews are generally limited to 90 days but can be extended [2]. Once the definition is published, the next steps would likely include applying it to federal research and nutrition programs and, potentially, proposing front-of-package labeling. The GRAS rule is a proposal open to public comment, and the FDA must review those comments before it can finalize the rule [1].
Why it matters
Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease drive a large share of U.S. health spending, and diet is one of the biggest contributors. Kennedy has noted that more than one in five American children has obesity [1]. A federal definition of ultra-processed food would not change any product on store shelves by itself, but it would give the government, schools, researchers and states a common yardstick. What the administration builds on top of it, from warning labels to school meal standards, could reshape the American food system.
Sources
- 1. "FDA Proposes GRAS Rule, Advances Ultra-Processed Food Definition," American Journal of Managed Care, August 11, 2026. https://www.ajmc.com/view/fda-proposes-gras-rule-advances-ultra-processed-food-definition
- 2. "FDA sends ultra-processed food definition to OMB, but not as a rule," AgBull, August 4, 2026. https://www.agbull.com/fda-sends-ultra-processed-food-definition-to-omb-but-not-as-a-rule/
- 3. "New U.S. Dietary Guidelines Released: What You Need to Know," Morrison Foerster, January 8, 2026. https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/260108-new-u-s-dietary-guidelines-released
- 4. "HHS, FDA and USDA request information on ultra-processed foods definition," HHS press release, July
- 2025. https://hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-fda-usda-ultra-processed-foods-definition-rfi.html Information in this article is current as of October 10, 2026. Bracketed numbers refer to the sources listed above.