Happy Friday, and welcome to Food Fix. Looking forward to seeing some of you at the Sustainability Leadership Summit hosted by Food Tank in New York City next week. I’m not catching much of the (extensive!) food-related Climate Week programming, but if you see me, do say hi!
Don’t miss out: Friendly reminder that Food Fix is possible because of paid subscriptions. If you work in the food space, it’s worth upgrading to get Tuesday newsletters, which cover more topics and are (I’m told) enormously helpful for making sense of the food policy landscape.
As always, I truly welcome your feedback. Send me your thoughts by replying to this email, or drop me a line: helena@foodfix.co.
Alright, let’s get to it –
Helena
***
What counts as ‘ultra-processed’? Government grants extra time to weigh in
The FDA and USDA on Thursday granted a 30-day extension to give everyone a bit more time to weigh in on how, exactly, the government should define ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
Quick refresher: Back in July, the agencies opened up a Request for Information to “gather information and data to help establish a federally recognized uniform definition” for UPFs, calling it “a critical step in providing increased transparency to consumers about the foods they eat.”
This all may sound like wonky, inside-baseball stuff (and it is), but the stakes are pretty high here. The food industry has long argued that UPFs are ill-defined as a way to push back on the growing public alarm (and concerning observational research) about them. Now that the federal government is asking for input on a definition, food industry leaders are going to have to go on the record about something they’d rather not touch.
When it comes down to it, many in the industry simply don’t want UPFs defined. But that’s a hard position to defend in the current moment – and particularly in the current administration, which has gone scorched earth (at least in their rhetoric, if not policy, as of yet) against ultra-processed foods, which HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials have blamed for our chronic disease crisis.
Complicated mission: As I explained back in July, figuring out how to draw lines around UPFs is trickier than it might seem. There’s a mountain of nutrition research linking UPF consumption to poor health outcomes using what’s known as the Nova classification system, which was created by leading researchers in Brazil. (Here’s a good breakdown of the various levels of processing measured by the type of ingredients, if you’re interested in reading more.)
While the Nova system is the most widely used, it’s not without its detractors – particularly within the food industry. Critics argue that it oversimplifies things by focusing on the degree of processing, rather than the nutritional profile of the food. Some also worry it wrongly demonizes entire categories of foods that may be health-promoting, like yogurt or whole-wheat bread.
Granting more time for stakeholders to log their comments to the government is, in a small way, an acknowledgement by FDA and USDA of just how complicated defining ultra-processed foods is going to be.
Top Trump administration officials have been signaling this, too: Kyle Diamantas, FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, recently brought up the agency’s work to define UPFs during an interview with the American Moment podcast: “We’re going to really take a hard look and see if we can do that.” (Maybe it wasn’t intentional, but the “if” caught my attention here.)
FDA Commissioner Marty Makary was also a bit wishy-washy during an interview with Politico last summer: “If we come up with a good definition, there could be a lot of implications of having that definition,” Makary said. “Now maybe we won’t get it right on the first definition, because there’s no perfect definition. … This is an attempt to try to say, ‘Here’s a group of foods that’s generally not as healthy as more wholesome foods.’”
This effort to define UPFs comes amid soooo much noise about them – not just in the media, but also from Kennedy and others in the administration.
Eat less, define later: Even before landing on a formal definition, the Trump administration is expected to recommend less consumption of UPFs in its update to the dietary guidelines – which, by the way, was expected to be released any day (but may now be facing a more prolonged timeline).
As I reported earlier this week, we recently got confirmation that the FDA is moving ahead on a Biden-era initiative to mandate front-of-pack nutrition labeling. We don’t know exactly what shape this will take, but it appears likely to be finalized before the agencies come up with a definition for UPFs.
The initial proposal from FDA flags high, medium and low levels of salt, added sugars and saturated fat on the front of the label. (Considering the FDA commissioner thinks the government’s long-standing advice to consume less saturated fat is misguided “dogma,” it’s hard to see that part of the label surviving.)
Running out the clock? There are some public health leaders who think this entire quest to define ultra-processed foods is a fool’s errand – and, in a way, a gift to the food industry because it could take years to finish and effectively delay any real policy actions.
In the meantime, just in the last week or so: For the first time, UNICEF warns in a major report, there are more school-aged children in the world who have obesity than are underweight. The global children’s agency blames a shift from traditional diets to ones heavily reliant on UPFs.
“When we talk about malnutrition, we are no longer just talking about underweight children,” UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell said. “Obesity is a growing concern that can impact the health and development of children. Ultra-processed food is increasingly replacing fruits, vegetables and protein at a time when nutrition plays a critical role in children’s growth, cognitive development and mental health.”
The World Health Organization on Thursday warned that pressure from tobacco, alcohol and food companies is broadly preventing governments from implementing critical public health policies.
“The United Nations will dedicate a day to tackling non-communicable diseases, like cancer and heart disease, next Thursday during its annual gathering in New York,” per Reuters’ Jennifer Rigby. “The WHO, the UN’s health agency, says the products contribute to such conditions. In a separate report, the WHO found that $3 per person invested by governments on non-communicable diseases could save more than 12 million lives and generate $1 trillion in savings by 2030.”
“The International Food and Beverage Alliance said it was inaccurate to equate food with tobacco and alcohol,” per that report. “‘We strongly disagree with the characterization of our industry as obstructing progress,’ added Rocco Renaldi, secretary general of the industry alliance, which represents food and non-alcoholic beverage companies.”
Vibes are off: Everywhere you look, there’s a steady drum beat of media coverage about how we should all be avoiding UPFs, from The Wall Street Journal to local TV news. Between numerous news reports and top U.S. health officials, the message is being broadly sent that UPFs are to be avoided, even if they aren’t defined (yet).
***
What I’m reading
FDA proposes ban on rarely used Orange B food dye (Food Dive). “The FDA proposed a ban on the color additive Orange B, saying it hasn’t been used by the food industry for close to half a century,” Sarah Zimmerman reports. “The proposal revokes the approval of Orange B for coloring the casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages. The agency says use of the additive appears to have ‘been abandoned,’ making the regulation ‘outdated and unnecessary.’ The ban comes as the FDA ramps up pressure on food companies to voluntarily remove artificial colors. The agency previously said it is also preparing to revoke Citrus Red No. 2, another lesser-used additive. With the FDA’s authority to revoke artificial food dyes in question, the agency is targeting rarely used additives that are unlikely to garner industry pushback. … The Trump administration is relying on voluntary compliance to eliminate the six remaining certified artificial dyes, as an outright ban would likely result in legal challenges.”
RFK Jr.’s assault on ultra-processed foods puts companies on edge (Bloomberg). “When Danone SA set out to create a high-protein yogurt, it wanted to make sure that each spoonful was loaded with as much protein as possible, while keeping sugar levels low and the texture smooth. To do that, it developed a process for its Oikos Pro brand that adjusted fermentation and temperature to avoid grittiness and separation,” writes Kristina Peterson. “Now, the industry is working to make sure that process doesn’t get Danone’s yogurt and other products defined as ultra-processed food… Kennedy said last week at a Trump administration event unveiling recommendations to improve children’s health that he wanted a federal definition and a front-of-package label for ultra-processed by the end of this year. He hasn’t targeted specific items yet, but companies are pushing back and lobbying to keep their products from getting branded as such because it would likely hurt sales.”
Booker, Cassidy, Smith, Marshall introduce bipartisan bill to improve the health of seniors (Senate). “U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), Tina Smith (D-MN), and Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS) introduced a bipartisan bill to provide access to medically-tailored meals to treat acute diet-related illnesses in seniors. Medically-tailored meals are designed by dieticians to manage or reverse severe diet-related illnesses and have shown promising results with reducing patients’ hospitalizations and lowering healthcare spending. The Medically Tailored Home-Delivered Meals Program Pilot Act would pilot Medicare coverage of this treatment, to address the crisis of chronic disease in seniors. … ‘For our seniors and our neighbors living with disabilities, getting to the grocery store or even just making dinner can be a real challenge. This bill improves access to individualized meals so that Medicare recipients have the food they need to stay healthy…’” Smith said.
Welcome to the MAHAconomy (Men’s Health). “Much like the term wellness, MAHA is an ambiguous shorthand without strict borders or definition, encompassing a wide range of trends and concerns, all in the hope of addressing high rates of chronic disease,” writes Rina Raphael. “Rather than declaring they’re a part of MAHA, people will often say that RFK Jr. legitimizes their long-held beliefs and values – but the telltale signs are as evident as the circles on a cupping patient: avoiding seed oils, synthetic food dyes, and ultra-processed foods; checking food toxicity apps; and expressing frustration over ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘Big Food.’ This latest interest in what we put in and on our bodies has translated into big bucks for some companies. The surge in demand for certified seed oil-free products, for example, resulted in year-over-year sales growth of 216 percent from 2024 to 2025, while sales of raw milk increased by nearly 18 percent in 2024. This is feeding what we’re calling a ‘MAHAconomy’ – MAHA-friendly products and services from emerging and established businesses that aim to profit off the MAHA agenda.”
Continuous glucose monitors are not a silver bullet for public health (Washington Post). “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has promised ‘bold, decisive action’ to reform our food and health. So far, though, most of his plans involve subtraction,” writes Tamar Haspel. “He has suggested precious few additions. But one of them is wearable technology in the form of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), an example of the kind of devices that Kennedy claims can enable people to ‘make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.’ Can the devices make a real dent in obesity and disease? CGMs don’t actually measure blood sugar; they measure sugar in the fluid between your cells, which is very similar to the amount in your blood. And they exist because they’re very useful if you have diabetes, or if you’re at high risk. Nobody (whom I’ve seen) disputes their value there. The question is whether they can be useful for people who don’t have diabetes but are trying to eat better or lose weight, or both.”
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder resigns from company, emphasizes core values (ABC News). “Jerry Greenfield, the co-founder of the Ben & Jerry’s ice cream brand, has officially quit the business after he said he concluded that his core values of spreading love and fighting for equity and justice are ‘no longer possible,’” reports Kelly McCarthy. “‘It’s with a broken heart that I’ve decided I can no longer, in good conscience, and after 47 years, remain an employee of Ben & Jerry’s,’ the statement from Greenfield began. … In 2000, Unilever purchased the iconic brand that built a reputation on advocacy around social missions that seek to eliminate injustices in communities. Under its ownership, Greenfield said Ben & Jerry’s maintained their independence ‘in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever, one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company’s governance structure in perpetuity. It’s profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence is gone.’ Citing the current Trump administration, Greenfield emphasized that ‘standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important.’”
US commodity groups push to transfer Food for Peace to USDA (World Grain). “Leaders from several US commodity groups participated in a fly-in Sept. 16-17 with lawmakers advocating for the full transfer of the Food for Peace program to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),” reports Susan Reidy. “Through the program, American agriculture has fed more than four billion people in over 150 countries. The program also has built markets for American farm exports since its inception in 1954. Earlier this year, USAID – the previous home of Food for Peace – was eliminated through an executive order. Oversight of the program currently lies at the State Department, which has ground food aid shipments to a halt, the groups said. Because the USDA has a proven track record of administering all of the other US in-kind food aid programs, this change will ensure this ‘America First’ program survives another 71 years and beyond, they said. Leaders from the American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Sorghum Producers, the USA Rice Federation, and the North American Millers’ Association participated in the fly-in.”
***
Why you should upgrade to a paid subscription to Food Fix
Become a paid subscriber to unlock access to two newsletters each week, packed with insight, analysis and exclusive reporting on what’s happening in food, in Washington and beyond. You’ll also get full access to the Food Fix archive – a great way to get smart on all things food policy.
Expense it: Most paid subscribers expense their subscriptions through work. It’s worth asking!
Discounts: We also offer discounts for government, academia and students. See our subscription options. Individuals who participate in SNAP or other federal nutrition programs qualify for a free Food Fix subscription – just email info@foodfix.co.
Get the Friday newsletter: If someone forwarded you this email, sign yourself up for the free Friday edition of Food Fix. You can also follow Food Fix on X, Bluesky and LinkedIn.
See you next week!
