HHS and USDA sent the first federal definition of ultra-processed food to OMB on August 10, 2026. What is known, what it could change, and what it will not do.
9/11/2026 · 7 min read · Chris Carrillo · Reviewed by Armin Rad, Co-Founder & CTO, Aurascan · Last reviewed 9/11/2026
Editorial accountability
Written by Chris Carrillo. Reviewed by Armin Rad, Co-Founder & CTO, Aurascan. It cites 4 sources; use the source list and methodology to check the evidence directly.
Walk through a crawlable sample result, including what comes from the label, what needs evidence, and what the scanner cannot conclude.
View the sample resultWASHINGTON - As of September 11, 2026, HHS and USDA advanced the first uniform federal definition for ultra-processed foods by submitting a proposed framework to OMB on August 10, 2026. The benchmark guides federal nutrition policy and additive oversight rather than enacting outright ingredient bans or consumer restrictions.
Key takeaways:
On August 10, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture formally transmitted a draft regulatory notice containing a proposed definition of ultra-processed foods to the Office of Management and Budget. This submission marks the first time U.S. regulatory bodies have drafted a single, unified definition for processing tiers across federal agencies, as outlined in the HHS press release on the interagency ultra-processed foods initiative.
The submission follows an extensive public feedback process initiated a year earlier. On July 25, 2025, the FDA and USDA published a joint Request for Information in the Federal Register docket on ultra-processed foods seeking scientific data, nutritional methodologies, and consumer understanding regarding highly processed food formulations. HHS says the definition incorporates feedback from thousands of stakeholders who responded to that request.
OMB review represents the standard gateway in federal rulemaking. During this 30 to 90 day stage, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs evaluates the economic impact, interagency consistency, and scientific grounding of the draft document before authorizing its public release in the Federal Register.
For decades, federal nutrition policy relied primarily on nutrient-density metrics such as saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars rather than the industrial methods used to manufacture foods. Under the emerging framework, the federal government is shifting toward evaluating physical processing steps, chemical modifications, and the presence of cosmetic food substances.
The precise draft criteria remain confidential during active OMB review. However, federal agency notices confirm the framework seeks to establish an objective, reproducible metric for determining what constitutes an ultra-processed product. This policy development coincides with broader regulatory updates, such as the FDA Proposes Ending Self-Affirmed GRAS: What Changes for You initiative designed to tighten oversight of novel food additives.
Importantly, the submission of a proposed definition does not create an immediate ingredient ban, consumer tax, or sales restriction. Instead, it establishes an official technical baseline. Once published and finalized, this definition will supply the standard terminology required for scientific evaluation across federal research programs.
Federal agencies are also coordinating across multiple food additive initiatives. These include ongoing actions tracked in our analysis of FDA Revokes Orange B: The Sausage-Casing Dye Nobody Used, as well as evaluations highlighted in FDA Reassesses ADA Dough Conditioner: What It Means for Bread and FDA Opens Formal Safety Reassessment of BHT: What It Means.
The forthcoming standard will primarily affect packaged food manufacturers, agricultural suppliers, public nutrition assistance programs, and federal research institutions. Ultra-processed foods currently supply approximately 58% of total daily energy intake for the average American consumer and nearly 67% of calories consumed by children and adolescents. Companies that manufacture shelf-stable snacks, ready-to-eat meals, sweetened beverages, and industrially reformulated baked goods will face new standardized scrutiny regarding their ingredient architecture.
Institutional procurement programs will see direct operational impacts once the definition is adopted into formal program guidelines. The USDA National School Lunch Program, which serves over 29 million children daily, along with the School Breakfast Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), use federal nutritional definitions to establish reimbursable meal standards and eligible grocery basket lists.
Public health researchers and healthcare systems will also operate under the new standard. Epidemiologists have previously relied on varying academic classification systems, which created inconsistencies across scientific literature. A single federal definition gives researchers a stable foundation to evaluate health outcomes across diverse populations.
State regulators monitoring food safety and retail standards may also reference the federal benchmark. Several state legislatures have pursued independent oversight, as detailed in our guide on Which Food Additives Are Banned in Which US State (2026 Tracker) and reports on Potassium Bromate Bans: What States Have Done and When.
Baby food manufacturers and specialty producers are also monitoring federal ingredient classifications closely, particularly as states enforce distinct disclosure rules discussed in Baby Food Heavy-Metal Test Results Are Now on the Label.
Shoppers will not see instant changes in grocery aisles tomorrow. Because OMB review precedes the formal publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, packaged foods will continue to carry their current Nutrition Facts panels and ingredient statements during the rulemaking process.
In the medium to long term, the definition will influence front-of-package labeling, reformulations, and consumer guidance. Once federal criteria are finalized, manufacturers may reformulate recipes to avoid qualifying as ultra-processed under the government standard. This could accelerate the replacement of synthetic emulsifiers, artificial flavors, and texturizers with whole-food alternatives, mirroring trends seen in Food Brands Race to Drop Artificial Dyes Before 2027 and The Natural Food Colors the FDA Approved to Replace Dyes.
When evaluating packaged foods today, shoppers can inspect ingredient labels for common markers of industrial formulation:
Existing scientific evidence cannot establish identical health responses for every individual consumer, and current data cannot definitively prove that every single industrial processing method produces negative metabolic effects across all population groups.
International safety boundaries also illustrate differing regulatory thresholds for functional processing agents, such as those reviewed in Glycerol in Slush Drinks: EFSA Sets a Limit, UK Says No Under 7.
The push for a federal definition stems from growing global research on processed food patterns and long-term health outcomes. Academic researchers have widely used the NOVA food classification system, developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo, which categorizes foods into four groups ranging from unprocessed foods to ultra-processed formulations, as evaluated in PMC systematic reviews on classification models.
Open-source databases such as Open Food Facts helped popularize the NOVA framework globally by mapping ingredient lists to processing categories. Consumer analysis platforms, including Aurascan's processing tier metrics, have similarly helped shoppers identify industrial formulations by analyzing additive markers on packaged food labels.
While NOVA provided a useful initial research tool, U.S. Regulators and industry stakeholders noted several practical limitations. NOVA often categorizes nutrient-dense foods, such as fortified whole-wheat bread, plant-based dairy alternatives, and infant formulas, into the same processing tier as carbonated soft drinks and confectioneries. Regulators recognized that a clearer, more nuanced federal standard was necessary to separate beneficial food processing from nutritionally depleted formulations.
Between 2024 and 2026, large-scale systematic reviews and prospective cohort studies linked diets high in ultra-processed foods with higher relative risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, as synthesized in systematic reviews on ultra-processed foods and human health. In response, the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee reviewed processing metrics, prompting HHS and USDA to launch their July 25, 2025 Request for Information to construct an evidence-based federal standard.
The regulatory process follows a structured administrative timeline. Following submission on August 10, 2026, the OMB review period typically spans 30 to 90 days. Once OMB completes its assessment, the proposed definition will be published in the Federal Register as a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Key upcoming regulatory milestones to monitor include:
While federal agencies finalize these formal standards, shoppers looking to understand ingredient complexity on current labels can check processing indicators directly with Aurascan to identify cosmetic additives and industrial markers on their grocery items today.
As of September 11, 2026, the exact regulatory text remains under review at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) following its August 10, 2026 submission by HHS and USDA. The technical criteria will be publicly released once published in the Federal Register.
No. The proposal creates an official federal definition to guide nutrition policy, research, school meal programs, and dietary guidelines. It does not enact a ban, tax, or sales restriction on packaged food products.
The NOVA system classifies foods into four broad groups based on processing purpose, but critics argue it groups nutrient-dense fortified foods with junk food. The HHS-USDA effort aims to establish an objective, science-grounded standard tailored to U.S. dietary policy.
After OMB finishes its review, the proposed definition will be published for public comment. Following the comment period and agency revisions, a Final Rule will be issued, a process that typically takes 12 to 24 months.
No. Front-of-package labeling changes or mandatory disclosures would require separate, subsequent rulemaking after the formal definition is finalized across federal agencies.
Consumers can inspect ingredient lists for industrial markers such as high-fructose corn syrup, modified starches, emulsifiers, artificial flavors, and synthetic colors, or use label-scanning tools to assess ingredient processing levels.
Aurascan turns product labels into plain-English ingredient explanations and source-backed context.
Scan your next label with AurascanWhat changed on food labels this week — bans, recalls, and new guides.
Source labels distinguish peer-reviewed research, regulatory material, and Aurascan label data when that classification is available.
FDA's Red 3 revocation hits food on Jan 15, 2027. Where erythrosine still shows up (candy, frosting, cherries), what the label says, and why older stock may linger.
Most natural food colors are grown and imported, take 12-24 months to validate, and could jump in price as brands drop synthetic dyes by 2027. What that means for labels.
The FDA's dye pledge tracker (Sept 10, 2026) now targets end of 2027 for Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6 and three more. Which brands report Complete, which are still working.
