Ultra-Processed Foods: What are They and Why Should I Care?

Both federal and state governments have put ultra-processed foods (UPF’s) in their crosshairs, claiming their consumption is responsible for the poor health profiles of many Americans.  Law firms are beginning to warn food manufacturing companies to be aware of these regulations and prepare for potential major legislation that could impact labeling, product formulations, and school lunch programs.

Additionally, as consumers become more aware of what is actually in their food, the expectation is that consumption of less processed options will increase in demand.

But first, what exactly is a UPF?  

The Non-GMO Project recently launched a new label called Non-UPF Verified, which aims to help consumers identify foods that are not ultra-processed. Though the standard is not yet published, several food and beverage companies are participating in a six-month pilot of the Non-UPF Verified program.

“When we began addressing GMOs in 2007, we recognized that genetic engineering was just one way industrial food production was distancing us from natural ingredients,” Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project, said in a statement. “Today’s ultra-processed foods represent an even deeper departure — taking familiar ingredients and transforming them so fundamentally that our bodies no longer recognize them as food.”

The Non-UPF Program’s label relies on the Nova Classification System for ultra-processed foods, a framework that places foods into four categories based on their level of processing. Nova classifies ultra-processed foods as industrially-processed products such as mass-produced breads or packaged desserts containing additives and other ingredients not found in culinary preparation.

In this analysis, cane sugar is NOT a UPF, but HFCS IS a UPF due to its modification to a chemical not found in nature, including the enzymatic conversion of glucose to fructose.

The FDA is seeking to develop its own uniform definition of UPF.  In conjunction with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the FDA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking input to help develop a uniform definition. The commentary period just closed.

Most recently, at the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Fall Consumer Protection Conference in Washington DC on October 23, 2025, a representative from the West Virginia’s Attorney General’s Office offered a more holistic potential definition of UPFs, explaining that UPFs are ​“products made from formulations of ingredients that undergo intensive industrial processing” and that typically contain additives (such as preservatives, emulsifiers, flavorings, or colorings) that have little or no use in traditional cooking.

In the absence of a federal standard, some states have proposed or enacted legislation that creates state-specific definitions of UPFs, while others avoid defining UPFs altogether and instead impose bans on the sale of certain additives.

On October 8, 2025, Governor Gavin Newson signed into law Assembly Bill 1264, the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, as an attempt to phase out the most “concerning” ultra-processed foods from school meals in California. The legislation specifically addressed certain additives and finished processed foods that contain greater than 10% sugar.

Why Should I Care?

The goal of MAHA is lofty: to improve the health outcomes of US citizens and especially its children. Even if these initiatives prove to be difficult to turn into enforceable legislation, they will raise awareness of what we eat. This awareness will likely impact the demand for less processed sweeteners in our diets. Most consumer market research affirms these trends. 

We don’t have a crystal ball, but if you are a buyer of sweeteners, please know the demand for HFCS will continue to shrink as these initiatives impact the public sphere.  Sugaright has always advocated for the responsible consumption of sweet indulgences made with real sugar.

“Changing the way you think about sugar”.  That’s what we do.