The coming UPF regulation revolution

Key takeaways: Nobody is banning biscuits tomorrow but food manufacturers would be making a mistake if they dismissed the growing focus on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) as simply another nutrition debate. Around the world, regulators are laying the foundations for something much bigger. Definitions are being drafted, school food standards are changing, litigation is gathering pace and international health bodies are considering new recommendations. None of those developments has transformed the regulatory landscape on its own. Viewed together, however, they suggest the debate over UPFs is entering a new phase. The global food industry has spent years adapting to regulations built around nutrients. Manufacturers have reduced sugar, cut salt, replaced artificial colours and invested billions in reformulation. Now, increasingly, policymakers appear to be asking a different question: should regulation focus not only on what food contains, but also on how it is processed? Policymakers aren’t acting in a scientific vacuum. Last year’s three-part The Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health concluded that diets high in UPFs are associated with an increased risk of multiple chronic diseases and called for governments to consider a broad package of measures, including tighter marketing restrictions, front-of-pack labelling, fiscal policies and healthier school food environments. The authors argued that the evidence has become strong enough to justify policy action, even though important questions remain about causation and the biological mechanisms involved. Not everyone, however, agrees that processing alone should become the basis for regulation. Kantha Shelke, PhD, lecturer at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and MCI Management Center in Innsbruck, Austria, and principal at Chicago-based food science and research firm Corvus Blue, warned against treating ultra-processing as a proxy for nutritional quality, arguing that foods should be judged on their overall nutritional contribution, formulation and role in the diet rather than their level of processing alone. She also cautioned that an over-reliance on the NOVA classification risks grouping together products with very different nutritional profiles, potentially discouraging innovation that has improved food safety, affordability and shelf life. If there’s one development the food industry should watch more closely than any other, it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s work to establish a federal definition of an ultra-processed food: it could become the foundation for almost every future policy. Following the FDA and USDA’s Request for Information on Ultra-Processed Foods, published in July 2025, the agencies are reviewing evidence to develop the first federal definition. The project also aligns with the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda, which has made reducing UPF consumption a central policy objective. Everything else flows from that definition – school food rules, public procurement, warning labels, dietary guidance, advertising restrictions and, potentially, litigation. California has already taken the first step. Assembly Bill 1264, signed into law in October 2025, became the first US legislation to create a statutory definition of ‘ultra-processed foods of concern’ for school meals. The law requires California to develop those definitions by mid-2028 before schools begin phasing affected products out from 2029, with full implementation scheduled for 2035. Rather than relying solely on NOVA, the legislation establishes its own legal criteria linked to additives and nutritional characteristics, creating a framework other states may choose to adapt. Manufacturers will be watching that closely because regulatory definitions do not have to mirror academic ones. Once definitions exist, regulation becomes considerably easier. That doesn’t mean taxes or warning labels are inevitable but it does mean policymakers suddenly have a common language around which to build future rules. Schools are emerging as the first major testing ground. California has already moved in that direction, while Brazil is also urging the WHO to strengthen recommendations on children’s marketing, school food environments and dietary guidance. The proposal has attracted support from several countries and is expected to remain on the WHO agenda over the coming year. The next likely battleground is consumer information. The FDA is already progressing front-of-pack nutrition labelling as part of its wider nutrition strategy. While those labels are currently focused on nutrients, a federal UPF definition would inevitably prompt questions about whether processing should also become part of future consumer messaging. The agency has made both front-of-pack labelling and addressing UPFs key priorities within its 2026 programme. At the same time, litigation continues to expand. Lawyers are increasingly testing arguments around marketing, consumer protection and public health costs associated with UPFs. Legal experts note that producers now face growing compliance and litigation risks as state legislation, federal activity and private lawsuits begin moving in the same direction. The irony for bakery and snack manufacturers is difficult to ignore. Few sectors have invested more heavily in reformulation over the past decade. Companies have spent millions reducing sugar, lowering sodium, replacing artificial colours, increasing fibre, introducing wholegrains and developing higher-protein products to meet changing consumer expectations and evolving regulations. Yet much of that work has been built around nutrients. A processing-based approach asks manufacturers to solve a very different problem. A biscuit reformulated to contain less sugar may still be classified as ultra-processed. A breakfast cereal fortified with fibre and vitamins may still fall within a regulatory definition of a UPF. Even a protein bar developed for health-conscious consumers could ultimately be judged as much on how it is made as what it contains. Manufacturers may soon find themselves operating under two regulatory philosophies at the same time – one built around nutrients, the other increasingly influenced by processing. Reformulation remains important, but it may no longer be the only measure of regulatory success. The next major milestone could arrive later this year. Speaking in June, HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr said the FDA’s proposed definition was under White House review at the Office of Management and Budget and expected to be published “over the next couple of months”. If that timetable holds, manufacturers could have a federal definition before the end of 2026. Many states aren’t waiting. California has already created the first statutory definition of an UPF for school meals, while at least 17 states have proposed or passed legislation targeting UPFs in different ways. Most focus on school food, public procurement or specific additives rather than retail sales, illustrating how states are testing different regulatory approaches while Washington develops a federal definition. The result could be an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape unless a national standard emerges. Internationally, Brazil continues pressing the World Health Organization to strengthen action on UPFs through tighter recommendations on children’s marketing, school food environments and dietary guidance. While no global regulation is imminent, the issue remains firmly on the WHO agenda and is expected to feature in future discussions on non-communicable diseases and healthy diets. The UK is taking a much more measured approach. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition reviewed the latest evidence in 2025 and concluded that higher UPF consumption is consistently associated with poorer health outcomes. However, it also said it remains unclear whether the observed risks are caused by processing itself or by the high levels of fat, sugar and salt found in many UPFs. It stopped short of recommending regulation based solely on NOVA and instead called for better evidence and further research. That’s an important contrast with the US debate. Although the EU hasn’t proposed specific UPF legislation, policy pressure is building. Under its Safe Hearts initiative, the European Commission has announced a dedicated study into UPFs, while public health organisations are urging Brussels not to wait for the findings before considering stronger action on children’s marketing, school food environments and front-of-pack nutrition labelling. Litigation is also entering new territory. One of the most closely watched cases is the lawsuit filed by the City and County of San Francisco against Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International, PepsiCo, Nestlé and other major food manufacturers. The city alleges the companies knowingly marketed UPFs despite evidence linking excessive consumption to chronic disease, placing a growing financial burden on public healthcare systems. Although the case is still in its early stages and could take years to resolve, legal experts believe it could become an important test of whether governments can hold food manufacturers accountable for the health impacts of UPFs through the courts, rather than regulation alone. Waiting for every proposal to become law before preparing would be a mistake. The next 12 to 18 months are likely to prove pivotal. Manufacturers should be watching four developments in particular: publication of the FDA’s federal definition, further state legislation in the US, progress on the European Commission’s UPF study and continued WHO discussions around children’s marketing and healthy diets. The regulatory focus is clearly widening. Governments have spent decades regulating what food contains. Increasingly, they’re also examining how it is processed. Whether that ultimately reshapes food regulation remains to be seen, but manufacturers that understand where policy is heading will be far better prepared than those waiting for the legislation to arrive.