If you ask what an “ultra-processed food” is in the United States, the awkward truth is that there is still no single authoritative legal definition. That uncertainty matters because foods commonly considered ultra-processed are estimated to make up about 70% of the U.S. food supply, and American children get more than 60% of their calories from them. In July 2025, the FDA and USDA formally began asking for evidence to build a uniform federal definition. Their notice pointed to NOVA, the Brazilian four-part classification system, as the most widely used framework, but also warned that some definitions may be too broad, potentially sweeping in foods such as yogurt or whole-grain products that can still fit a healthy diet. The comment period was extended to October 23, 2025, and FDA says that developing a federal definition remains one of its 2026 priorities. (hhs.gov)

California, however, has decided not to wait for Washington. In October 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1264, a first-in-the-nation school law that created a statutory definition for ultra-processed food. Under that law, a product counts as a UPF if it contains certain additive categories, such as emulsifiers, colors, flavoring agents, or nonnutritive sweeteners, and is also high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains specified sweetening substances. The law requires the state to define “ultraprocessed foods of concern” and “restricted school foods” by June 1, 2028; schools must begin phasing them out by July 1, 2029, vendors are barred from offering them to schools from July 1, 2032, and school meals may not include them from July 1, 2035. (cde.ca.gov)

Now the struggle has moved from cafeterias to supermarket shelves. A California bill introduced in March 2026 would create a voluntary “California Certified” seal for foods that are not ultra-processed, borrowing the logic of the USDA Organic label rather than forcing a warning onto packages. Texas chose the opposite path: its SB 25 required warning labels for foods containing any of 44 specified ingredients, but a federal judge preliminarily blocked enforcement in February 2026, finding the mandate likely to be unconstitutional compelled speech. The deeper conflict, then, is not only scientific but political and linguistic as well: should governments frighten consumers away from suspect foods, steer them toward approved ones, or first settle what “ultra-processed” actually means? (gabriel.asmdc.org)