The New Dietary Guidelines Say “Avoid Ultra‑Processed Foods.” OK—But Which Foods Count, Exactly (and who’s trying to write the definition)?
Washington is telling Americans to cut “highly processed foods” while admitting it still can’t formally define “ultra‑processed.” That gap is now the policy fight.
Key Points
- 1Track the language shift: the DGA warns against “highly processed” foods while avoiding “ultra-processed,” because UPF lacks a U.S. regulatory definition.
- 2Follow the government’s clearest line: foods built mostly from refined sugars, refined grains/starches, refined oils, and industrial additives are the target.
- 3Watch the policy fight unfold: FDA and USDA are gathering input via an RFI to create a uniform UPF definition with big labeling and procurement stakes.
The federal government just told Americans to “eat real food” and to dramatically reduce highly processed foods—and then, in the same breath, left the country to argue about what that phrase even means.
On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) 2025–2030, framing the advice around a simpler-sounding theme: fewer industrial foods, fewer refined carbs, fewer added sugars. The messaging is designed to be accessible. The policy reality is messier.
Americans already suspect that the modern food supply is undermining health. Federal officials cite intake data suggesting that roughly 55% of calories consumed by Americans age 1+ come from foods classified as ultra-processed (based on analyses of dietary intake data from Aug 2021–Aug 2023). HHS press materials add another arresting estimate: about 70% of packaged products are “often considered” ultra-processed—and that children get over 60% of their calories from these foods. The urgency is clear.
The confusion is also clear: the new Guidelines largely avoid the term “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) altogether, favoring “highly processed foods.” That choice may sound like semantics. It’s not. It’s the difference between a public-health warning and an enforceable idea.
“The Guidelines urge Americans to cut back on a category the government still hasn’t formally defined.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines: what they say—and what’s new
A familiar message, with sharper edges
The federal framing matters because it shapes school meals, military food standards, nutrition education, and the language clinicians use with patients. When the government elevates a target—“highly processed foods,” in this case—it signals that diet problems aren’t only about personal weakness. They’re also about what’s cheap, available, and engineered to be hard to stop eating.
The headline nuance: “highly processed” is not “ultra-processed”
According to reporting and policy analysis around the release, part of the reason is practical: “ultra-processed” is widely discussed but not defined in U.S. regulation. The Guidelines are trying to steer Americans away from a real phenomenon without stepping into a definitional trap.
“In Washington, naming a problem is easy. Defining it in a way that survives scrutiny is the hard part.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The word problem: processed vs highly processed vs ultra-processed
No single authoritative U.S. definition—by the government’s own admission
That admission isn’t bureaucratic throat-clearing. It’s a candid description of why nutrition debates so often feel like people arguing past each other. If one side means “chips and soda,” and the other side means “anything in a box,” the conversation collapses.
Why the Guidelines chose a different label
The tradeoff is predictable. “Highly processed” sounds intuitive, but it’s still slippery. Without a shared definition, the phrase can become a Rorschach test: a warning label for some, an anti-industry slogan for others, and a compliance nightmare for anyone asked to implement it in procurement standards.
How the DGA define “highly processed foods” (and why that still isn’t a rule)
The Scientific Foundation definition: extracted substances and industrial additives
- Any food, beverage, or engineered food-like item
- Made primarily from substances extracted from foods
- Examples include refined sugars, refined grains/starches, and refined oils
- And/or containing industrial manufactured chemical additives
This is the clearest federal attempt in the 2025–2030 cycle to draw a boundary line around the target. It’s also revealing in what it emphasizes: not merely convenience, but composition—foods built from refined components and additives rather than recognizable ingredients.
The key caveat: a report definition, not a regulatory standard
“Highly processed” is not there yet. The government can recommend reduction. It cannot, at this moment, point to a single federally binding definition that determines what counts.
Practical implication for readers
“The new federal definition doesn’t outlaw your pantry—it tells you what the government thinks your pantry is quietly becoming.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
NOVA and the research war: the system everyone cites and no one fully agrees on
NOVA: the dominant research classification
1. Minimally processed foods
2. Processed culinary ingredients
3. Processed foods
4. Ultra-processed foods
Researchers like NOVA because it captures something nutrient panels often miss: the industrialization of food—how products are formulated, how additives are used, and how convenience foods displace meals.
Why NOVA is contested
The government’s hesitance to adopt “ultra-processed” language consistently in the DGA reads, in part, like an attempt to avoid choosing sides in that scientific dispute. NOVA may be the dominant research tool, but dominance isn’t the same as consensus.
What readers should infer from the disagreement
Why this is happening now: consumption numbers and policy pressure
The statistics driving urgency
- ~55% of calories consumed by Americans age 1+ come from foods classified as ultra-processed (analyses using dietary intake data from Aug 2021–Aug 2023).
- ~70% of packaged products are “often considered” ultra-processed (HHS language is careful, reflecting definitional uncertainty).
- Children get over 60% of calories from these foods (again, from HHS press materials).
- The policy timeline: the DGA were released January 7, 2026, after the government had already launched a definition push in July 2025.
These figures function like a public-health indictment. Even if you dispute the exact boundaries of UPF, the broad picture is hard to ignore: industrial packaged food isn’t a side feature of American life. It’s the base layer.
A federal system trying to catch up to a fast-changing food supply
The shift reflects a belief that nutrient-by-nutrient guidance has not fully captured why diets go off the rails. It’s also a recognition that Americans don’t eat isolated nutrients; they eat products.
The government’s next move: building a uniform definition of UPFs
The RFI: an official request for a nationwide definition
That timeline matters. The definitional work began before the 2026 Guidelines were released, and it continues alongside them. In other words, the government is simultaneously warning Americans about a category and trying to define it in a durable way.
What the definitional project signals—without promising an outcome
- Food labeling conversations
- Procurement standards (schools, hospitals, federal programs)
- How research findings translate into public advice
- Industry reformulation strategies and compliance claims
No single document will end the debate, but the act of attempting a definition is a major policy step. It suggests UPFs are no longer just a research topic; they’re becoming a governance question.
How to use the Guidelines without getting trapped in the semantics
Practical takeaways: what “reduce highly processed” can mean in daily life
- Build meals from recognizable ingredients more often: vegetables, fruits, beans, eggs, fish, yogurt, grains that look like grains.
- Treat refined starch + added sugar combinations as occasional rather than default.
- Watch for products engineered from extracted components—especially when they replace meals rather than supplement them.
These steps don’t require purity. They require noticing replacement. When a “food-like item” stands in for breakfast every day, the Guidelines are asking you to reassess—not to panic.
Daily-life ways to “reduce highly processed”
- ✓Build meals from recognizable ingredients more often: vegetables, fruits, beans, eggs, fish, yogurt, grains that look like grains.
- ✓Treat refined starch + added sugar combinations as occasional rather than default.
- ✓Watch for products engineered from extracted components—especially when they replace meals rather than supplement them.
Case study: the “healthy” packaged-food trap
The Guidelines’ implication isn’t that every packaged item is poison. It’s that diets dominated by engineered convenience products can drift away from the foods that reliably deliver satiety and nutritional adequacy.
A fair counterpoint: processing can also help
The best reading of the DGA is less moralistic. Reduce reliance on highly processed products where possible. Increase real-food patterns where feasible. A workable diet is better than a perfect ideology.
The takeaway: a warning without settled vocabulary
That tension will define the next phase of food policy. The Guidelines tell you to cut back on “highly processed foods.” The agencies are simultaneously working—through a formal FDA/USDA process—to define “ultra-processed” in a uniform way. Between those two efforts sits the real American challenge: building a daily diet that doesn’t depend on products engineered to be cheap, ubiquitous, and hard to quit.
You don’t need perfect definitions to make one useful change. You only need to notice which foods behave like food—and which behave like inventions.
Key Insight
Editor’s Note
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines ban ultra-processed foods?
No. The DGA 2025–2030 are national recommendations, not bans. They encourage Americans to significantly reduce highly processed foods, along with refined carbohydrates and added sugars. The Guidelines also do not consistently use the term “ultra-processed foods,” partly because UPF lacks a single authoritative U.S. definition.
Why do the Guidelines say “highly processed” instead of “ultra-processed”?
Because “ultra-processed” is widely used in research but not defined in U.S. regulation, and federal agencies have acknowledged there is no single authoritative definition. Using “highly processed” allows the Guidelines to issue clear directional advice while avoiding a term that could imply an official classification system the government hasn’t adopted.
How does the government define “highly processed foods” in the new Guidelines?
In the Scientific Foundation supporting the DGA, “highly processed foods (HPF)” are described as foods, beverages, or “engineered food-like items” made primarily from substances extracted from foods (such as refined sugars, refined grains/starches, refined oils) and/or containing industrial manufactured chemical additives. That definition supports the report but isn’t a formal regulatory standard.
What is the NOVA system, and why does it matter?
NOVA is a food classification system introduced in 2009 and widely used in research. It groups foods into four categories, including ultra-processed foods. NOVA matters because many studies and headlines rely on it. It’s also debated: critics say NOVA can be ambiguous and may misclassify some foods, which complicates policy and consumer guidance.
How much of the American diet is ultra-processed?
One widely cited analysis of U.S. intake data (Aug 2021–Aug 2023) found about 55% of calories consumed by Americans age 1+ came from foods classified as ultra-processed. HHS also estimates children get over 60% of calories from such foods, and that about 70% of packaged products are “often considered” ultra-processed—careful wording that reflects definitional uncertainty.
Is the federal government working on an official UPF definition?
Yes. On July 23, 2025, HHS announced a joint FDA/USDA Request for Information (RFI) to develop a federally recognized uniform definition of ultra-processed foods. The RFI was issued July 24, 2025, under docket FDA-2025-N-1793, with an initial comment deadline of Sept 23, 2025 that was later extended.
