The FDA Still Hasn’t Defined ‘Ultra‑Processed’—So Your Recipe Blog’s ‘No‑UPF’ Badge Might Be Meaningless (Here’s the loophole brands are exploiting)
“UPF‑free” reads like a regulated nutrition promise—but the FDA still treats “ultra‑processed” as a concept, not a binding definition. Until that changes, the badge can mean whatever the issuer decides it means.
By TheMurrow Editorial
May 5, 2026
Key Points
- 1Know the gap: The FDA still hasn’t issued a legally operative definition of “ultra‑processed,” so “UPF‑free” isn’t standardized.
- 2Spot the loophole: “No‑UPF” works as an unstandardized absence‑of claim, borrowing credibility from regulated nutrient claims through context and design.
- 3Shop with proof: Use ingredient lists and Nutrition Facts for verifiable comparisons—especially added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and fiber/protein.
The next time a package promises “No UPFs” or “UPF‑free,” pause before you congratulate yourself for spotting a healthier option. That label may be doing more rhetorical work than regulatory work.
Here’s the surprise: the FDA still hasn’t defined “ultra‑processed foods” in a legally operative way. Not in a manner that binds manufacturers, not in a way that standardizes consumer expectations, and not in the way that familiar claims like “low sodium” or “good source of fiber” are standardized.
Yet the term has become a fixture of modern food debate—shared in doctor’s offices, splashed across social media, and now increasingly printed on packaging. Consumers are being asked to navigate a category the federal government is still trying to name.
Right now, ‘ultra‑processed’ is a powerful idea—without a federal definition to anchor it.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
What follows is not a dismissal of processing concerns. Federal agencies themselves are signaling urgency. But until the government finishes its work, “UPF‑free” sits in a strange space: culturally loaded, scientifically contested, and legally fuzzy.
The simplest truth: “Ultra‑processed” isn’t an FDA-defined term—yet
The FDA’s own public explainer on ultra‑processed foods (UPFs) describes the phrase as a commonly used concept, not a settled regulatory category. The language matters. When an agency treats a term as a concept rather than a definition, it’s effectively telling consumers and companies: there is no single federal rulebook yet. (FDA)
That gap is not academic. In the U.S., many label and marketing phrases gain meaning because they’re tied to regulations—especially nutrient content claims like “free,” “low,” and “good source.” Those claims sit on a framework of definitions and thresholds. “Ultra‑processed” has none of that, which means “No‑UPF” messaging can drift into whatever a brand, influencer, or publisher wants it to mean. (FDA)
The federal government is not ignoring the issue. On July 24, 2025, the FDA and USDA issued a joint Request for Information (RFI) seeking input toward a “federally recognized uniform definition” of UPFs. That phrase—uniform definition—is an implicit admission that no such definition currently exists. (FDA)
The FDA later extended the comment period until Oct. 23 in the context of that 2025 RFI, underscoring that the agencies are still collecting evidence and arguments rather than enforcing a standard. (FDA)
That gap is not academic. In the U.S., many label and marketing phrases gain meaning because they’re tied to regulations—especially nutrient content claims like “free,” “low,” and “good source.” Those claims sit on a framework of definitions and thresholds. “Ultra‑processed” has none of that, which means “No‑UPF” messaging can drift into whatever a brand, influencer, or publisher wants it to mean. (FDA)
The federal government is not ignoring the issue. On July 24, 2025, the FDA and USDA issued a joint Request for Information (RFI) seeking input toward a “federally recognized uniform definition” of UPFs. That phrase—uniform definition—is an implicit admission that no such definition currently exists. (FDA)
The FDA later extended the comment period until Oct. 23 in the context of that 2025 RFI, underscoring that the agencies are still collecting evidence and arguments rather than enforcing a standard. (FDA)
70%
The FDA has cited estimates that about 70% of the U.S. food supply is “commonly considered” ultra‑processed—a striking figure that also raises the definitional question: commonly considered by whom, under what definition? (FDA)
What “no definition” means for shoppers
A label can feel like a promise. But absent a federal definition, a “UPF‑free” badge is not anchored the way regulated nutrient claims are. That doesn’t automatically make it deceptive. It does mean consumers should treat the claim as marketing language first, and verification second.
A claim can be persuasive even when it isn’t standardized.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
What the FDA actually regulates: claims must not mislead, but not all claims are created equal
The FDA’s labeling framework draws sharp distinctions among types of claims. Some are heavily policed because they can be measured, compared, and verified against defined criteria. Others float in more interpretive territory. (FDA)
This matters because consumers often interpret any front-of-pack badge as if it carries the same evidentiary weight as terms the FDA has explicitly defined. But the framework is uneven by design: the more measurable the claim, the more standardized the rules; the more interpretive the claim, the more it depends on context and whether it misleads. (FDA)
This matters because consumers often interpret any front-of-pack badge as if it carries the same evidentiary weight as terms the FDA has explicitly defined. But the framework is uneven by design: the more measurable the claim, the more standardized the rules; the more interpretive the claim, the more it depends on context and whether it misleads. (FDA)
Nutrient content claims vs. everything else
The clearest example of tight regulation is nutrient content claims—terms such as:
- “Free” (as in fat-free)
- “Low” (as in low sodium)
- “Good source” (as in good source of fiber)
These usually require compliance with FDA authorizing regulations and specific conditions. (FDA)
Health claims—statements about the relationship between a substance and a disease—are also regulated and must meet FDA standards and authorizations. (FDA)
But “UPF‑free” is neither a nutrient content claim nor a classic health claim. It’s closer to an “absence-of” statement about a category that is not federally defined.
- “Free” (as in fat-free)
- “Low” (as in low sodium)
- “Good source” (as in good source of fiber)
These usually require compliance with FDA authorizing regulations and specific conditions. (FDA)
Health claims—statements about the relationship between a substance and a disease—are also regulated and must meet FDA standards and authorizations. (FDA)
But “UPF‑free” is neither a nutrient content claim nor a classic health claim. It’s closer to an “absence-of” statement about a category that is not federally defined.
The loophole dynamic: unstandardized absence-of claims
Because “ultra‑processed” isn’t an FDA-defined nutrient or standardized category, “No‑UPF” claims often function as vague marketing statements. Under FDA principles, labeling must be truthful and not misleading, but the enforcement terrain becomes murky when the underlying term is itself unsettled. (FDA)
There’s also the question of context. FDA regulations recognize that statements can become implied nutrient content claims depending on how they’re presented—especially if they appear in a nutrient context that suggests measurable nutritional superiority. (21 CFR 101.13 via eCFR)
A “No‑UPF” icon printed alongside “low sugar” and “high protein” may nudge the consumer to read it as similar in rigor. The law’s concern is not only what a label says, but what a reasonable shopper is likely to infer.
There’s also the question of context. FDA regulations recognize that statements can become implied nutrient content claims depending on how they’re presented—especially if they appear in a nutrient context that suggests measurable nutritional superiority. (21 CFR 101.13 via eCFR)
A “No‑UPF” icon printed alongside “low sugar” and “high protein” may nudge the consumer to read it as similar in rigor. The law’s concern is not only what a label says, but what a reasonable shopper is likely to infer.
A revealing parallel: “natural”
The FDA has acknowledged that it has not done rulemaking to formally define “natural,” relying instead on longstanding policy views. (FDA) “Natural” is one of the most litigated and debated words in grocery aisles precisely because it carries moral weight but limited legal precision.
“Ultra‑processed” is traveling a similar path—popular, value-laden, and increasingly commercialized before federal rules lock it down.
“Ultra‑processed” is traveling a similar path—popular, value-laden, and increasingly commercialized before federal rules lock it down.
When a term becomes culturally potent before it becomes legally precise, consumers become the testing ground.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The science most people mean: NOVA dominates research, but the FDA hasn’t adopted it
When journalists and researchers discuss UPFs, they often mean one thing: NOVA. The Congressional Research Service notes NOVA as a widely used four‑group food classification system introduced by Brazilian researchers, with CRS citing 2010 as the introduction point. (Congressional Research Service)
NOVA’s premise is straightforward and provocative: classify foods by the extent and purpose of industrial processing, not merely by nutrient totals. (CRS)
That difference matters because the nutrient-label approach—count calories, fat, sugar, sodium—doesn’t always capture what worries UPF critics: additives, industrial formulations, engineered texture, hyper‑palatability, and the way certain foods are designed to be eaten.
NOVA’s premise is straightforward and provocative: classify foods by the extent and purpose of industrial processing, not merely by nutrient totals. (CRS)
That difference matters because the nutrient-label approach—count calories, fat, sugar, sodium—doesn’t always capture what worries UPF critics: additives, industrial formulations, engineered texture, hyper‑palatability, and the way certain foods are designed to be eaten.
2010
CRS cites 2010 as the introduction point for NOVA, a four‑group processing-based food classification system widely used in UPF research. (CRS)
The problem: borderline foods and counterintuitive results
NOVA can generate classifications that feel counterintuitive to consumers. Reporting has highlighted how some nutrient-dense or culturally “healthy” foods may still land in an “ultra‑processed” bucket under NOVA—examples often include some whole‑grain breads, plant‑based milks, yogurts, and nut spreads. (TIME)
That doesn’t prove NOVA is wrong; it reveals what NOVA is measuring. The system isn’t trying to reward “healthy vibes.” It’s trying to describe processing patterns—and processing can exist in foods that still have legitimate nutritional value.
For shoppers, this is where “UPF‑free” marketing can become misleading even when ingredients look benign. A brand might exclude a few well-known additives and declare victory. A strict NOVA interpretation might still categorize the product as ultra‑processed based on formulation and industrial purpose.
That doesn’t prove NOVA is wrong; it reveals what NOVA is measuring. The system isn’t trying to reward “healthy vibes.” It’s trying to describe processing patterns—and processing can exist in foods that still have legitimate nutritional value.
For shoppers, this is where “UPF‑free” marketing can become misleading even when ingredients look benign. A brand might exclude a few well-known additives and declare victory. A strict NOVA interpretation might still categorize the product as ultra‑processed based on formulation and industrial purpose.
Why the FDA’s hesitation matters
The FDA/USDA RFI explicitly asks the public what factors and criteria should be included in a federal definition, suggesting officials are considering choices NOVA doesn’t settle for them: binary vs. tiered systems, how to handle borderline categories, and which measurable criteria can stand up in policy. (FDA)
A research framework can be influential without being legally adoptable. NOVA is a lens; regulation requires a ruler.
A research framework can be influential without being legally adoptable. NOVA is a lens; regulation requires a ruler.
The 2025 FDA–USDA RFI: the government signals urgency, not closure
The most important development in the U.S. UPF story isn’t a viral documentary or a celebrity campaign. It’s paperwork: the July 24, 2025 FDA–USDA joint RFI calling for input on a uniform definition of ultra‑processed foods. (FDA)
RFIs are not performative. They are how agencies gather evidence before drafting guidance, rulemaking, or other policy tools. The fact that two agencies—FDA and USDA—moved jointly signals that the issue crosses regulatory boundaries: packaged foods, dietary guidance, and federal nutrition programs all sit nearby.
RFIs are not performative. They are how agencies gather evidence before drafting guidance, rulemaking, or other policy tools. The fact that two agencies—FDA and USDA—moved jointly signals that the issue crosses regulatory boundaries: packaged foods, dietary guidance, and federal nutrition programs all sit nearby.
July 24, 2025
FDA and USDA issued a joint Request for Information seeking input toward a “federally recognized uniform definition” of ultra‑processed foods—signaling the definition doesn’t yet exist. (FDA)
What the RFI implies about next steps
The RFI’s questions—about criteria, factors, and the shape of a definition—suggest the government is wrestling with tradeoffs:
- Consumer clarity vs. scientific nuance
- A simple binary label vs. a tiered system that captures degrees
- Ingredient-based rules vs. process-based frameworks
- Enforceability vs. completeness
The FDA also extended the comment period until Oct. 23 (as referenced in the context of the 2025 RFI), a small but meaningful signal: agencies expect strong opinions, contested evidence, and the need for broader input. (FDA)
- Consumer clarity vs. scientific nuance
- A simple binary label vs. a tiered system that captures degrees
- Ingredient-based rules vs. process-based frameworks
- Enforceability vs. completeness
The FDA also extended the comment period until Oct. 23 (as referenced in the context of the 2025 RFI), a small but meaningful signal: agencies expect strong opinions, contested evidence, and the need for broader input. (FDA)
Oct. 23
FDA extended the RFI comment period until Oct. 23, underscoring that agencies are still collecting evidence rather than enforcing a UPF standard. (FDA)
A key reality check for consumers
Until a definition exists, “UPF‑free” claims will continue to operate in a gray zone—part aspiration, part argument. That doesn’t mean consumers should ignore the UPF debate. It means shoppers should treat the debate as live, not settled.
“UPF-free” meets the grocery aisle: how brands can make the claim without lying
Consumers often assume that if a phrase is printed on a package, the government has vetted its meaning. For many nutrient claims, that’s close to true. For “UPF‑free,” it’s not.
Here’s how a “No‑UPF” badge can appear without a clear violation: the label may avoid making a measurable nutrient promise and instead position the phrase as a broader lifestyle cue. The claim may be defensible under a company’s internal definition of ultra‑processed—especially if it is not overtly tied to disease prevention or specific nutrient thresholds.
Here’s how a “No‑UPF” badge can appear without a clear violation: the label may avoid making a measurable nutrient promise and instead position the phrase as a broader lifestyle cue. The claim may be defensible under a company’s internal definition of ultra‑processed—especially if it is not overtly tied to disease prevention or specific nutrient thresholds.
Case study: the “absence-of” halo effect
Consider the structure of common front-of-pack messaging. A product can create a health halo by stacking signals:
- “No artificial flavors”
- “No preservatives”
- “No UPFs”
- “Natural ingredients”
Even if each phrase is loosely defensible, the combined impression can be stronger than the evidence. FDA policy focuses heavily on whether labeling is misleading, not only whether each word has a technical definition. (FDA)
The risk for consumers is interpretive. “No preservatives” is not the same as “low sodium.” “No UPFs” is not the same as “minimally processed.” But the package design can encourage shoppers to read them as equivalent badges of scientific certainty.
- “No artificial flavors”
- “No preservatives”
- “No UPFs”
- “Natural ingredients”
Even if each phrase is loosely defensible, the combined impression can be stronger than the evidence. FDA policy focuses heavily on whether labeling is misleading, not only whether each word has a technical definition. (FDA)
The risk for consumers is interpretive. “No preservatives” is not the same as “low sodium.” “No UPFs” is not the same as “minimally processed.” But the package design can encourage shoppers to read them as equivalent badges of scientific certainty.
When “UPF-free” could raise regulatory eyebrows
The more a “No‑UPF” claim is presented like a standardized nutrition claim—through placement, icons, comparative language, or adjacency to regulated nutrient claims—the more it may invite scrutiny as an implied claim. FDA’s rules on implied nutrient content claims exist precisely because context shapes meaning. (21 CFR 101.13 via eCFR)
For now, enforcement remains complicated by the absence of a federal definition. That is the central tension: the government can police misleading labeling, but it cannot easily police a term it has not defined.
For now, enforcement remains complicated by the absence of a federal definition. That is the central tension: the government can police misleading labeling, but it cannot easily police a term it has not defined.
Practical takeaways: how to read “UPF” messaging without getting played
The goal here isn’t cynicism. The goal is consumer competence.
Treat “UPF-free” as a claim that needs a definition
When you see “No UPFs,” ask: whose definition? If the package doesn’t say, assume it is the brand’s internal standard—not a federal one.
Use the ingredient list as a reality check
A “UPF‑free” badge can distract from the plain text that matters most: the ingredient list. A long list is not automatically bad, and a short list is not automatically good. But ingredient transparency gives you something the slogan does not: verifiable information.
Look for what the claim is trying to replace
If “UPF‑free” is doing the work of a nutrition discussion, it may be a shortcut. Use the claim as a prompt to check what you actually care about:
- Added sugars
- Sodium
- Saturated fat
- Fiber/protein content
Those are not the full story of health, but they are measurable, comparable, and regulated in ways UPF currently isn’t.
- Added sugars
- Sodium
- Saturated fat
- Fiber/protein content
Those are not the full story of health, but they are measurable, comparable, and regulated in ways UPF currently isn’t.
Keep two ideas in your head at once
You can believe both of these statements without contradiction:
1. UPFs are a serious public health concern worth federal attention. (FDA signals priority; prevalence cited)
2. “UPF‑free” labeling is not standardized today and should not be treated like a regulated nutrition claim. (FDA has no operative definition yet)
That mental discipline protects you from being whipsawed by certainty where none exists.
1. UPFs are a serious public health concern worth federal attention. (FDA signals priority; prevalence cited)
2. “UPF‑free” labeling is not standardized today and should not be treated like a regulated nutrition claim. (FDA has no operative definition yet)
That mental discipline protects you from being whipsawed by certainty where none exists.
Shopping checklist: don’t let “No UPFs” do the thinking
- ✓Ask “whose definition?” if criteria aren’t stated
- ✓Check the ingredient list for verifiable details
- ✓Use Nutrition Facts to compare added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, fiber/protein
- ✓Notice context: is “No UPFs” placed next to regulated nutrient claims to borrow credibility?
The deeper question: what we really want from a UPF definition
A federal definition will do more than settle a semantic debate. It will influence which foods are targeted by guidance, which products are re‑formulated, and how “healthy” is communicated to the public.
Consumers want clarity; science wants accuracy
The popularity of NOVA reflects a hunger for a framework that goes beyond nutrient math. But as reporting and policy briefs acknowledge, borderline cases challenge clean categories. (TIME; CRS)
A too-simple definition could be easy to enforce and easy to market—but potentially misleading or overly broad. A too-complex definition could be scientifically richer—but hard for consumers to use and hard for regulators to administer.
A too-simple definition could be easy to enforce and easy to market—but potentially misleading or overly broad. A too-complex definition could be scientifically richer—but hard for consumers to use and hard for regulators to administer.
Industry, public health, and the risk of politicization
A federal UPF definition will also be contested because it has consequences. If most of the food supply is “commonly considered” ultra‑processed (FDA’s cited estimate), a definition could touch everything from school meals to advertising norms to reformulation incentives.
That scale creates predictable pressure: industry will argue against overbreadth; public health advocates will argue against loopholes. Consumers will want something usable that doesn’t turn grocery shopping into a graduate seminar.
A smart policy outcome would acknowledge what the agencies appear to be acknowledging now: definitions don’t merely describe reality—they shape it.
That scale creates predictable pressure: industry will argue against overbreadth; public health advocates will argue against loopholes. Consumers will want something usable that doesn’t turn grocery shopping into a graduate seminar.
A smart policy outcome would acknowledge what the agencies appear to be acknowledging now: definitions don’t merely describe reality—they shape it.
Conclusion: until the definition arrives, skepticism is a form of literacy
“Ultra‑processed” has become one of the most influential food terms in America without becoming a legally stable one. The FDA says so plainly, if quietly: the agency is still working toward a definition, and in 2025 it asked the public to help build one.
In the meantime, “UPF‑free” is not a regulated gold standard. It’s an invitation to ask better questions—about ingredients, formulation, and the kind of evidence you want packaging to meet.
The next era of food labeling may well include a federally recognized UPF definition. If it does, it will change how companies market, how researchers communicate, and how consumers judge the everyday choices that add up to a diet.
Until then, treat “No UPFs” the way you should treat any powerful but undefined claim: as persuasion first, and proof only when the details follow.
In the meantime, “UPF‑free” is not a regulated gold standard. It’s an invitation to ask better questions—about ingredients, formulation, and the kind of evidence you want packaging to meet.
The next era of food labeling may well include a federally recognized UPF definition. If it does, it will change how companies market, how researchers communicate, and how consumers judge the everyday choices that add up to a diet.
Until then, treat “No UPFs” the way you should treat any powerful but undefined claim: as persuasion first, and proof only when the details follow.
Key Insight
Until the FDA adopts a legally operative definition, “UPF‑free” behaves less like a nutrition standard and more like a brand’s internal rule—interpreted through packaging context.
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering food & recipes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the FDA officially defined “ultra‑processed foods”?
No. The FDA describes “ultra‑processed” as a commonly used concept and is still working toward a definition; the 2025 FDA–USDA RFI underscores there is no uniform federal definition yet. (FDA)
If there’s no definition, are “UPF‑free” labels allowed?
The phrase isn’t automatically banned. Labels must be truthful and not misleading, but without a federal definition, “UPF‑free” often reflects a company’s criteria unless it implies a standardized nutrition claim. (FDA; 21 CFR 101.13)
Is NOVA the official U.S. system for ultra‑processed foods?
No. NOVA is widely used in research and discussed in policy contexts (including CRS), but the FDA has not adopted it as a regulatory standard. (CRS; FDA)
Why do some “healthy” foods get called ultra‑processed?
Processing-based systems like NOVA classify by the extent and purpose of industrial processing, not only nutrients—so some whole‑grain breads, plant-based milks, yogurts, or nut spreads can fall into an ultra‑processed category. (CRS; TIME)
What did the FDA and USDA do in 2025 about UPFs?
On July 24, 2025, FDA and USDA issued a joint RFI seeking input on criteria for a UPF definition and later extended the comment period to Oct. 23—signaling development, not finished policy. (FDA)
How should I evaluate a “No UPFs” claim when shopping?
Treat it as nonstandard unless criteria are explained. Use it as a prompt to check the ingredient list and Nutrition Facts, and note if it’s positioned next to regulated nutrient claims to borrow credibility. (FDA; 21 CFR 101.13)
