The emerging legal definition of ultra-processed food signals a decisive shift in US food regulation

A series of regulatory moves across the United States is pushing the food and consumer packaged goods sector towards what appears to be the country’s first workable definition of “ultra-processed foods”, marking one of the most consequential legal shifts in modern food policy.

According to Perkins Coie’s Q3 2024 Food and CPG Legal Trends report, the developments, spanning federal agencies and multiple state legislatures, suggest that regulators, rather than waiting for academic consensus, are beginning to codify their own interpretations of processing, additives and formulation in response to mounting political and consumer pressure.

The debate, which has grown louder over the past decade, risks moving from academic nutrition science into binding statutory law rather rapidly. Industry leaders, legal advisers and product developers now face the prospect that a term long used informally may soon carry regulatory weight, rather than merely operating as a cultural reference point in discussions about diet and health.

Federal agencies move towards a shared definition

The most prominent signal comes from the joint Request for Information issued by the US Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year. The agencies openly acknowledged that the United States has no established definition of ultra-processed foods, even as public discourse increasingly treats the term as though it does. In response, the agencies solicited comments on how such foods ought to be defined, receiving roughly 19,000 responses, including submissions from the Consumer Brands Association and the American Bakers Association.

Whilst the agencies have yet to propose a formal definition, the RFI signals a rather substantial shift in attitude. Instead of avoiding the ambiguity of the term, regulators appear ready to evaluate whether definitions based on processing categories, additive profiles or functional ingredients might be appropriate. The request also widens the door to future rulemaking, suggesting that federal authorities are beginning to treat “ultra-processed” not merely as a public health descriptor but as a policy-relevant classification with potential impacts on labelling, formulation and school-meal standards.

States accelerate ahead of federal action

If the federal government is taking a deliberately measured approach, several states are moving ahead far more quickly, creating a patchwork of definitions that may, in time, force Washington to act.

California has taken the most decisive step so far with AB 1264, a law that introduces an explicit statutory definition of ultra-processed foods for use in school settings. The legislation does not attempt to regulate the entire marketplace but does establish criteria for identifying foods considered ultra-processed under state law. This marks the first time a US state has operationalised the term within a legislative framework.

Texas, for its part, has enacted HB 1688, requiring disclosure of 44 specified ingredients on school menus. Although the law does not use the phrase “ultra-processed”, the listed ingredients mirror many of the additives and functional inputs that commonly appear in academic classifications of UPFs. The effect is similar: increased visibility of processing-related substances and the indirect creation of a processing-centred regulatory tool.

Louisiana’s HB 113 takes the concept further by requiring that “all artificial substances must be declared on the front of package”. This requirement, again without using the term “ultra-processed”, nonetheless aligns with the same underlying policy trend: heightened scrutiny of processing aids, sweeteners, emulsifiers, synthetic colours and stabilisers, the report notes.

Taken together, these state measures suggest that the operational definition of ultra-processed foods may emerge from legislative practice rather than academic debate, creating compliance obligations well before the federal government finalises its own view.

Wider regulatory tensions reshape the landscape

The movement towards defining ultra-processed foods also intersects with a much broader pattern of litigation, enforcement and regulatory friction across the food sector.

California’s proposed ban on four colour additives prompted a notable political response after companies, regulators and forensic toxicologists challenged the state’s reliance on studies and toxicology data. Meanwhile, civil litigation has expanded significantly, with a rise in class-action suits targeting “natural” and ingredient-related claims. Products containing citric acid, malic acid, stevia and flavouring compounds have all faced challenges, often arguing that ingredient origin or processing renders “all natural” labelling misleading.

The same report highlights cases involving alternative-protein brands, low-sugar claims and even the labelling of stevia “reb A”. Elsewhere, multi-district litigation continues around heavy-metal testing for baby food, as well as disputes involving enzyme-based processes, sweeteners and anti-inflammatory ingredient claims.

Rather than existing as an isolated policy discussion, the attempt to define ultra-processed foods is becoming entangled with these broader legal currents. For many manufacturers, it represents a consolidation of several pressures at once: ingredient transparency, additive scrutiny, front-of-pack claims, rising state-level activism and an increasingly litigious consumer environment.

Implications for brands and product development

From a commercial perspective, the emerging definition of ultra-processed foods introduces uncertainty into product positioning, formulation strategy and labelling compliance. If state-level standards continue to proliferate, national brands will face the possibility of reformulating or relabelling products in order to satisfy multiple overlapping definitions.

For marketing and research leaders, the consequences reach beyond regulatory risk. Retailers, advocacy organisations and parents’ groups may adopt state definitions even before federal agencies weigh in, shaping demand patterns and prompting reformulation in anticipation of future rules. A regulatory definition—whether narrow or expansive—may also influence investment in alternative sweeteners, natural-flavour systems, colour formulations and clean-label strategies.

The Perkins Coie’s report underscores that, as the legal and commercial environment becomes more fragmented, brands will need far clearer visibility into their ingredient profiles, processing aids and supplier chains. What was once an academic argument about nutrition science has rather abruptly become a practical compliance question for every R&D, regulatory and marketing team operating in the United States.

A turning point for the US food system

The convergence of federal inquiries, state statutes and growing litigation suggests that the United States is on the cusp of treating “ultra-processed food” as a legally meaningful category. Whether the eventual definition resembles academic models or evolves into something more policy-driven, the direction of travel is unmistakable.

For an industry long accustomed to broad flexibility in formulation and labelling, this represents a significant turning point. If current trends continue, the legal meaning of “ultra-processed” may soon shape everything from school-meal standards to front-of-pack claims, retail positioning and product reformulation strategies—potentially influencing the next decade of innovation in food and consumer packaged goods.