Food industry calls for nutrient-based approach to ultra-processed foods as US tightens policy

Processed foods continue to create confusion about which foods to consume and avoid for better health. The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise consumers to avoid such foods but offer no clear definition. This may mislead consumers into believing that all packaged foods are unhealthy, without considering their nutritional value.

Nutrition Insight speaks with Rocco Renaldi, secretary-general of the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), who critiques conventional classifications for ultra-processed foods (UPFs) based on the Nova system. He advocates for fortified and reformulated products and calls for guidelines recognizing that the industry has improved nutrition through reformulation.

The new dietary guidelines urge Americans to limit processed foods but offer little definition. How does this lack of clarity affect consumers and policy debates?
Renaldi: When guidelines encourage people to “limit processed foods” without clearly defining what that means, consumers are left to fill in the gaps themselves — often assuming that all packaged or convenient foods are unhealthy. That assumption is neither accurate nor helpful.

Broadly disparaging “processed foods” can imply an idealized food system in which all foods are fresh and minimally handled — a reality that has never existed at scale and is unrealistic for most modern households. Without a clear, science-based definition of what makes a food “processed,” this framing can confuse consumers and discourage them from consuming otherwise nutritious foods, including fortified products that play an important role in addressing nutrient gaps and supporting public health.

From a policy standpoint, vague guidance can lead to overly simplistic interpretations and blunt regulatory approaches. Without definitions grounded in nutrition science, it becomes difficult to design policies that are targeted and effective. The risk is that guidance intended to improve public health ends up creating confusion rather than supporting informed choices and balanced diets.

Nova-style classifications are gaining influence. Where do they oversimplify the link between processing, nutrition, and health?
Renaldi: Nova-style classifications oversimplify the issue by treating processing as a direct indicator of health, while largely ignoring nutritional quality. Under these systems, foods with very different nutrient profiles are often grouped together as UPFs, even when one may be higher in fiber, lower in salt or sugar, or meaningfully improved through reformulation.

Vague guidance on processed foods in the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans risks confusing consumers and oversimplifying nutrition science.This approach removes important nuances. For example, a whole-grain bread and a refined white bread can be classified the same way, despite clear nutritional differences. The same applies to reformulated products that have been improved over time. By focusing on processing alone, these systems overlook the factor that matters most for health outcomes: nutrition.

What are the risks of focusing regulation on the processing level rather than the nutritional quality?
Renaldi: The main risk is that regulation becomes disconnected from actual health outcomes. When policies are based primarily on processing level, they fail to distinguish between foods that contribute very differently to diets and public health.

This kind of framing can also create an all-or-nothing narrative in which large portions of the food supply are implicitly discouraged, despite the reality that most people rely on processed and packaged foods for affordability, safety, and access to consistent nutrition.

This can lead to unintended consequences. Consumers may become confused or disengaged if most foods in the supermarket are effectively labeled as undesirable. At the same time, manufacturers may lose incentives to continue improving nutritional profiles if reformulated products are treated no differently than nutritionally poor ones. 

In that sense, broad approaches to UPFs risk being counterproductive rather than supportive of better nutrition.

How should fortified and reformulated foods be treated in guidance?
Renaldi: Fortified and reformulated foods should be evaluated based on their nutritional composition, not dismissed solely because they are processed. In many populations, there are clear nutrient gaps — fiber is a good example — and reformulated products can help address those gaps in practical and affordable ways.

Guidance that broadly discourages processed foods without recognizing these improvements risks undermining progress that has taken years to achieve. Rather than discouraging entire categories of foods, guidance should help consumers make better choices within categories. Balance and differentiation are essential.

To what extent do dietary guidelines reflect industry reformulation efforts to improve nutrition while maintaining affordability and safety?
Renaldi: Industry reformulation efforts are not always adequately reflected. Over the past decade, many companies have made sustained, measurable progress in reducing nutrients of concern such as salt, sugar, and saturated fat while also adding positive nutrients where appropriate. These changes are often gradual and intentionally low-profile to ensure consumer acceptance.

Improving nutrition while maintaining affordability, food safety, and taste is complex and takes time. Guidelines that do not acknowledge these efforts risk presenting an incomplete

picture of the food system. Recognizing ongoing reformulation is important not only for accuracy but also to ensure that incentives for continued improvement remain in place.

Nutrition Insight recently examined ACI Group and Specialised Nutrition Europe’s message that processing is not inherently “bad” and often essential to improve access to nutrition. They highlighted the role of ingredient suppliers in the UPF debate and the opportunities for innovation.