Voluntary certifications and seals to help consumers easily identify foods and beverages that are not considered “ultra processed” continue to proliferate – creating market incentives for manufacturers to reformulate products to qualify for the callouts that could command a premium.
However, the effectiveness of the claims could be undermined by a lack of standardization or single definition for “ultra-processed,” which could cause more consumer confusion than clarity, industry leaders warn.
Advocates for non-UPF certifications counter that the seals offer shoppers who want to cut back on the consumption of ultra-processed foods a tangible shortcut to identify “better choices” without a science or nutrition degree.
California jumps on non-UPF certification bandwagon
The latest to join the fast-evolving non-UPF certification landscape is California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, D-Encino, and the Environmental Working Group, which once again teamed up to propose legislation that could have far-reaching implications for the packaged food industry beyond the state’s borders.
Late last month, Gabriel introduced Assembly Bill 2244, which, if passed, would create a “California Certified” non-UPF seal that food manufacturers could voluntarily place on products that meet the legislation’s standards for not being ultra-processed.
The seal is modeled after the USDA Organic certification, which was established at the industry’s behest in response to inconsistent and decentralized state and private standards and to streamline interstate and international commerce. The USDA Organic seal faced significant opposition when first proposed and took years of negotiation to pass. It is regularly updated and enforced through a unique partnership between industry stakeholders and the Department of Agriculture.
Like the USDA Organic certification process, AB 2244 would create a certification framework under which manufacturers would apply for the seal from accredited agents overseen by the California Department of Public Health. The department would accredit the certification agents by June 1, 2028.
Agents would not certify a product if it met the definition for ultra-processed or a restricted school food under California Assembly Bill 1264, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in October as the first state law to legally define “ultra-processed food.”
That law broadly defines UPF as any food or beverage that contains one or more ingredients with a “specific technical effect,” including surface-active agents; stabilizers and thickeners, propellants, aerating agents and gases; colors and coloring adjuncts; emulsifiers and emulsifier salts; flavoring agents and adjuvants; flavor enhancers – excluding spices and natural seasonings or flavorings; non-nutritive sweeteners. It also defines UPFs as containing 10% or more total energy from saturated fat, a milligrams sodium to calorie ratio equal or greater than one to one, and 10% or more total energy from added sugars. Other substances that could trigger the UPF definition include D-sorbitol, erythritol, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates, isomalt, lactitol, monk fruit concentrate, maltitol, stevia glycosides, thaumatin and xylitol.
While the seal would be voluntary for manufacturers, large grocery chains in California would be required to display products with the seal in “prominent high traffic areas in the store, so that busy shoppers can find healthier options more quickly, because healthy food shouldn’t be hidden,” Gabriel said at a press conference.
“Our contention is that parents shouldn’t need a PhD in chemistry to try to understand what it is that they’re feeding their kids,” he added.
He also noted that the bill is an effort to “promote healthier options across the food supply without banning any products,” although his track record shows he has no qualms about that route.
Gabriel helped pen and promote legislation three years ago banning the sale within the state of products containing a handful of additives and colors as well as the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act that phases out ultra processed foods from schools in California.
Those laws became a template for similar restrictions and legislation in more than 30 other states – an outcome that underscores the broader potential of the California Certified non-UPF legislation, should it pass.
Multiple non-UPF certifications are available already
California’s legislation is notable given the influence of the state and Gabriel’s track record promoting and passing bills that are reshaping the food industry, but it is not the first to offer a certification for products deemed non-UPF.
In early 2025, the founder of the Non-GMO Project debuted a Non-UPF Verified pilot program with 20 brands with the goal of creating a clear, research-backed criteria for defining and verifying non-UPF products, similar to how it set the standard for non-GMO labeling.
More recently, the consumer-focused mobile app Wisecode launched the Non-UPF Shield verification program for brands that meet its non-ultra processed threshold.
Could certifications compound consumer confusion?
These efforts address a void created by a lack of a federal definition of ultra-processed food and rising consumer concern about UPFs. However, the lack of standardization among the certification programs could compound consumer confusion.
“As policymakers begin to define ‘ultra processed,’ a growing range of approaches are emerging to identify and label foods as non-ultra processed. While these approaches are often grouped together, they differ significantly in what they actually measure,” said Megan Westgate, CEO of the Non-GMO Project.
She explained: “Some focus on nutrients like sugar, fat and sodium, or on screening ingredients listed on the product label. These are important signals and represent meaningful progress, but they do not fully capture the defining characteristic of ultraprocessed food: how it is made.”
She added: “For consumers, that can make these claims harder to interpret.”
As such, she argued that “as this space evolves, clarity around what is being measured – and what is not – will be essential to ensure these claims are meaningful and consistent across the marketplace.”
She added that “Non-UPF Verified was developed specifically to address this gap by evaluating processing methods directly, including information not visible on the product label.”
The Institute of Food Technologists underscored many of the same concerns as Westgate.
“IFT recognizes that the term ‘ultra‑processed foods’ is used inconsistently and often without clear scientific definition, which can contribute to confusion rather than informed decision‑making for consumers,” said Brendan Neimira, chief science and technology officer at IFT.
Neimira added: “The challenge is communicating about food processing in a way that reflects the diversity of foods, their nutritional contributions and the role of processing in enhancing safety, affordability and access – without oversimplifying complex science into labels, seals and/or claims that may unintentionally mislead.”
