“Highly-processed foods” is hardly a new term, but its appearance in the newly released 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) – instead of the more familiar “ultra-processed foods” – didn’t go unnoticed.
While some critiques of the DGA shrugged off the absence of the term ultra-processed, others argued that it could lead to further confusion.
The DGA prioritized whole foods like fruits, vegetables and protein over their highly-processed counterparts. This recommendation, which strayed from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) report released in December 2024, was celebrated by many, irrespective of the terminology.
DGAC declined to provide a clear guidance on UPFs in its recommendations, noting that no agreed-upon definition exists on these foods, which are largely considered to contain additives and preservatives.
“My message is clear. Eat real food,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a press conference announcing the release of the DGA.
Although Kennedy’s message was welcomed by many health advocates, some criticized the blanket use of highly-processed, arguing that not all processed foods are unhealthy.
Ultra-processed undefined
In July, the Food and Drug Administration issued a request for information to help develop a uniform definition for UPFs.
The absence of a clear definition is the likely culprit in the decision to reference highly-processed foods – a term that also is not defined by the federal government – according to Anna Herby, a dietician and nutrition education specialist with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
“So instead, they used the term highly processed, which is equally as unclear,” Herby said. “The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee that researched this topic during its two-year service concluded that the definitions and research on UPFs was too inconsistent, so they weren’t able to come out with any clear guidance on it.”
Not all UPFs
Use of the term highly-processed did not go unnoticed by the International Dairy Foods Association.
IDFA President and CEO Michael Dykes cautioned that the term could create confusion among consumers and policymakers, noting that ultra processed does not necessarily mean unhealthy.
“Many nutritious, safe and essential foods – including milk, yogurt and cheese – undergo processing to ensure quality, safety and accessibility,” he said. “Establishing dietary guidance around an undefined or inconsistently applied term risks discouraging consumption of nutrient-rich foods that are vital to public health. As we noted in recent comments to federal agencies, any move toward defining or classifying foods by processing level is premature and should be informed by rigorous, consensus-based science.”
The criticism of highly-processed foods in the DGA also resulted in a rebuke from Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, who said the guidelines unjustly condemn UPFs.
The organization is calling on the DGA to modify the guidance to recognize that some UPFs are healthy. “These include breakfast cereals and breads, which are fortified with folic acid, vitamin B12 and other nutrients that prevent birth defects and reduce risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” the organization said.
More evidence needed
Meanwhile, the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) gave a different take on use of the term highly-processed foods, calling on the USDA and HHS to provide a definition.
The group said any denunciation of highly-processed foods should come with a caveat: “The advice to limit or avoid highly-processed packaged, prepared and ready-to-eat foods must always be paired with reducing added sugars, refined carbohydrates and sodium,” the IFT said. “Claims linking certified food colors, artificial flavors, artificial preservatives and low- or no-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners to chronic illness require stronger evidence, whether considered individually or collectively, and remain largely suggestive.”
IFT noted that many non-nutritive sweeteners are naturally plant-based, and many artificial preservatives are derived from natural sources.
Ingredient manipulation in focus
The focus on UPFs in the guidance will likely put pressure on manufacturers to reformulate their products and messaging, according to Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of Non-GMO Project.
“Not all processing is inherently negative; techniques like freezing, fermenting, and milling can preserve nutrition and improve access,” according to Westgate. “The real issue is whether processing is used to support health, or to engineer foods that mimic real ingredients while encouraging overconsumption.”
She noted that 72% of US shoppers are actively trying to cut UPFs out of their diets. “As this guidance takes hold, we expect consumers to treat processing as a critical lens for evaluating food integrity, with growing awareness of ingredient manipulation, industrial additives, and cosmetic techniques that can disconnect food from nourishment,” she said.
A win for public health?
Marion Nestle, longtime NYU professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health, called the guidance “a mixed bag” but was unequivocal in her support of the pressure the DGA puts on UPFs.
Nestle criticized the recommendations calling for more red meat and whole-fat dairy consumption, but added: “The recommendation to reduce highly-processed foods (a euphemism for ultra processed) is the one great strength of these recommendations.”
“Following that advice might help Make America Healthy Again,” she said. “But the rest must be viewed more as ideology than science, and also must be interpreted in the light of this administration’s destruction of what was once a reasonably effective public health service (CDC, FDA, NIH) and system.”
