Advice about ultraprocessed foods often sounds simple: eat less of them. But a new expert panel report argues that the category may be too broad to guide food policy on its own.
The report, released by Healthy Eating Research, says policies aimed at reducing ultraprocessed food consumption should distinguish between products with poor nutritional quality and those that may still fit into a healthy diet. That distinction matters because ultraprocessed foods can include sugary drinks, processed meats and packaged sweets, but also whole-grain breads, some cereals, plant-based proteins and other packaged foods that may provide useful nutrients.
The report is not a new clinical trial or health outcomes study. It is an expert panel report focused on how ultraprocessed foods should be defined and regulated in U.S. policy. Healthy Eating Research convened a 14-member multidisciplinary panel to review existing definitions, policy approaches and evidence related to ultraprocessed foods. The panel recommended a practical definition that could be used in settings such as schools, government food programs, labeling rules or other public policies.
Ultraprocessed foods are commonly defined using the Nova classification system, which focuses on how foods are made and whether they include industrial ingredients or additives not typically used in home cooking. The Healthy Eating Research panel recommended using Nova Category 4 as the scientific basis for defining ultraprocessed foods in policy, along with an ingredient-based approach that could make the definition easier to apply.
But the panel also cautioned that processing is only one way to evaluate a food. Nutritional quality still matters.
That point is central to the report’s recommendation that some foods classified as ultraprocessed could be exempt from policies designed to discourage ultraprocessed food consumption. According to the report, foods may qualify for an exemption if they contain enough recommended food groups, stay below thresholds for added sugar, sodium and saturated fat, and do not contain non-sugar sweeteners.
The goal is not to declare ultraprocessed foods healthy as a category. Instead, the report argues for a more precise approach, one that can reduce exposure to products most strongly tied to poor health without discouraging foods that help people meet nutrition recommendations.
That nuance is important because the health effects of ultraprocessed foods may vary by subgroup. Research has linked higher intake of ultraprocessed foods overall with higher risks of cardiovascular disease, chronic illness and mortality, but some studies suggest that categories such as sugary drinks and processed meats may drive more consistent harm than other packaged foods. The American Heart Association has also noted that not all ultraprocessed foods are “junk foods” or poor in nutritional quality, even while emphasizing that many are high in saturated fat, added sugars and sodium.
For consumers, the report points to a practical takeaway: the ingredient list matters, but so does the overall nutrition profile. A packaged food that is high in added sugar, sodium or saturated fat is different from one that provides whole grains, fiber, protein or other nutrients with lower levels of nutrients people are advised to limit.
That does not mean ultraprocessed foods should become the foundation of a healthy diet. Many are designed to be convenient, shelf-stable and highly appealing, and the report notes several possible pathways through which ultraprocessed foods may affect health, including food matrix changes, hyperpalatability, energy density, nutrients of concern and exposure to certain additives or contaminants.
It does mean that blanket advice may not always help people make better choices. For a busy parent buying school lunches, a person managing blood sugar or someone trying to eat more whole grains on a budget, “avoid all ultraprocessed foods” may be less useful than knowing which packaged foods are worth limiting and which may still support a healthy eating pattern.
The policy implications could be significant. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture have been working toward a federal definition of ultraprocessed foods, a step that could influence future nutrition policy, school meals and food labeling discussions. The FDA’s 2026 priorities include continuing work with USDA and other federal partners to analyze comments and research as the agencies develop a federal definition.
The report’s message is not that processing doesn’t matter. It’s that processing should not be the only thing that matters.
As ultraprocessed food becomes a bigger part of nutrition policy, the challenge will be creating definitions that are clear enough to use, strong enough to discourage less healthy products and flexible enough to avoid sweeping nutritionally valuable foods into the same category as soda, candy and processed meat.
The expert panel was supported by Healthy Eating Research with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The report notes that individuals were invited to serve on the panel based on subject-matter expertise, and that the recommendations do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations with which panelists are affiliated.
The Global Food Research Program at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health conducted the policy scan and definition modeling that informed the panel’s deliberations.