However, ultra-processed foods were consistently more affordable and dominated total U.S. grocery sales. The report, commissioned by IFIC, suggests that dietary recommendations and discussions about UPFs must be grounded in real-world consumer behavior, rather than treating these products as easily avoidable, and consider nutritional value.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University analyzed how four major food processing classification systems (including the NOVA “ultra-processed” definition) differ in categorizing foods and how those differences may influence nutrition research, public health, and policy.
This episode of Food Safety Five reads between the lines of the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans, discussing its use of the term “highly processed foods,” how its definition differs (or does not differ) from the debated “ultra-processed foods” category, and the potential implications for food policy.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030 were unveiled on January 7 alongside a new, inverted food pyramid that elevates the importance of protein and dairy, and an “eat real food” messaging campaign that denounces “highly processed food.”
A new study demonstrated how public health and regulatory initiatives targeting “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) may have unintended consequences if definitions for the category and mechanistic understandings of processing are not refined.
During a technical meeting convened by IAEA, FAO, and WHO, experts emphasized the need for a joint response to the interconnected issues of food safety and nutrition. The use of nuclear techniques to enhance food safety and nutrition was also explored.
The Trump administration released its "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) Report on May 22, laying a foundation for the overhaul of government policy on childhood nutrition, food chemicals, environmental toxins found in food contact materials, and other concerns.
