Upgrade your browser - Unfortunately, this site has updated features that can't run on this version of Internet Explorer. Download a free upgrade of Internet Explorer.
×
No image available
{{product.title}}
Print product
Quantity: {{product.qty}}

SUBTOTAL:
{{subTotal}}
And {{products.length - 5}} additional items, click here to review your cart.
Your cart is empty.

UPF Considerations

Scientific Considerations and Potential Implications for Ultra-processed Food Definitions, Classifications and Policy

Scientific Considerations and Potential Implications for Ultra-processed Food Definitions, Classifications and Policy: 

 

A Unique Example of Dairy Foods 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide information for consideration regarding the role of ultra-processed foods in nutrition and health. As discussions on food processing continue to evolve, we encourage a balanced, evidence-based approach that evaluates foods based on their nutritional contributions to the diet and their role in helping individuals meet dietary recommendations.  

Executive Summary 

California’s AB 2244 proposes the development of a voluntary "Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Food Standard” intended to help consumers identify foods that meet specific processing and ingredient criteria. While improving diet quality and reducing chronic disease are important public health objectives, significant scientific questions remain regarding how ultra-processed foods (UPFs) should be defined, measured and regulated. Current evidence suggests that food processing alone is not a reliable indicator of nutritional quality or health impact. Policies focused primarily on processing classifications may create unintended consequences for consumer understanding, nutrition security and access to nutrient-dense foods, including dairy products and other healthy items like canned beans, frozen fruits, and whole grain cereals.  

Scientific Uncertainty Surrounding UPFs

Interest in UPFs has grown substantially due to observational studies linking higher UPF consumption with obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and other chronic conditions. However, many experts caution that the evidence remains insufficient to conclude that processing itself causes these outcomes. Most UPF studies are observational and cannot establish causality. In addition, studies often use inconsistent definitions and classify nutritionally diverse foods within the same category, making results difficult to interpret.  

The 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee identified limitations in the current evidence base and did not provide recommendations related to UPF consumption due to concerns regarding definitions, classification methods and interpretation of findings. Experts continue to debate whether observed health risks are attributable to food processing itself or to nutritional characteristics that frequently co-occur in some UPFs, such as higher calorie density, added sugars, sodium and lower fiber content.  

Why Processing Alone May Not Reflect Healthfulness 

Food processing serves important functions in the food supply, including improving food safety, extending shelf life, reducing food waste, increasing accessibility and preserving nutritional quality. Processing can also support product reformulation efforts aimed at reducing sodium, sugar and saturated fat while improving nutrient content.  

Several experts have noted that current classification systems, particularly NOVA, focus largely on formulation and ingredients rather than nutritional value. As a result, foods with strong nutrient profiles may be classified as UPFs, while foods with lower nutritional value may receive more favorable classifications. This can create conflicting messages for consumers and confusion within nutrition education efforts.  

Dairy Foods Highlight the Complexity of UPF Classification 

Dairy foods provide a practical example of why processing-based classifications may not align with nutrition science and intended public health outcomes. Processing is essential to dairy food safety and functionality. Pasteurization ensures the safety of milk, while fermentation produces products such as yogurt, kefir and cheese that have demonstrated health benefits. Depending on ingredients and formulation, dairy products can be classified across multiple processing categories despite providing similar nutrients and health benefits.

Dairy foods provide nutrients that work together to support health and well-being. Emerging evidence highlights the importance of the dairy matrix, the natural combination and interaction of nutrients, bioactive compounds and food structure found in milk, yogurt and cheese. These interactions help explain the health benefits associated with dairy foods that extend beyond the effects of individual nutrients such as naturally occurring saturated fats, sodium and sugars, or processing levels. 

Evidence-Based Health Benefits of Dairy Foods 

Across fat levels, dairy foods provide a unique combination of nutrients, including high-quality protein, calcium, vitamin D, potassium, iodine and other essential nutrients that work together to help support strong bones and muscles, cardiometabolic health, cognitive health and overall well-being across every life stage. 

Offering consumers a range of food varieties and nutrient-dense options gives individuals the flexibility to choose dairy foods that fit their personal preferences, culture and lifestyle needs. 

UPF Policy Considerations  

A recent Healthy Eating Research consensus paper proposed defining UPFs using NOVA Group 4 and classifying packaged foods as UPFs when they contain at least one cosmetic additive or ingredient of non-culinary use. While intended to support future policy efforts, this ingredient-based approach could classify many nutrient-dense dairy foods as UPFs, including certain yogurts, flavored milk, dairy protein beverages, processed cheese products and meal replacements. It could also categorize dairy-derived ingredients such as whey protein, casein, lactose and milk protein isolate as UPF markers, regardless of their role in improving nutrient density, protein quality or product functionality. 

As California considers a Non-Ultraprocessed Certification standard, policymakers should evaluate whether the framework: 

Conclusion 

California is a leader in addressing legitimate concerns about diet quality and chronic disease; however, the scientific understanding of UPFs remains unsettled. Current evidence suggests that processing alone is not a sufficient measure of a food's nutritional value or health impact. Dairy foods illustrate how processing can enhance food safety, preserve nutrients, and contribute to positive health outcomes. A science-based certification framework should therefore consider nutrient density, dietary contribution, food matrix effects, accessibility, food safety, affordability, cultural foodways and consumer understanding to ensure California's policies support both public health and nutrition security.

About Dairy Council of California 

Dairy Council of California is a science-based nutrition organization that collaborates with partners to elevate the health of children and communities through the pursuit of lifelong healthy eating patterns. Funded by California’s dairy farm families and milk processors and under the guidance of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Dairy Council of California’s registered dietitian nutritionists and experts in nutrition science, education, agricultural literacy and community health engage with partners in school, health care and community settings, working together to achieve nutrition security and optimal health. Each year these collective efforts improve access to nutritious foods and provide nutrition education and resources for millions of people in California and beyond, demonstrating the dairy community’s contribution to sustainable nutrition and community health. 

 

References

  1. 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of Agriculture. Published December 10, 2024. Accessed August 31, 2026. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2025-advisory-committee-report   
  2. Access to Nutrition Initiative. Classification of processed foods: opportunities and gaps. Published April 2024. Accessed August 31, 2026. https://accesstonutrition.org/app/uploads/2024/04/ATNI-Discussion-Paper-Classification-of-Processed-Foods-Final-2.pdf  
  3. Blake JS. Examining the NOVA food classification system and the healthfulness of ultra-processed foods. EatRight Pro website. Updated January 23, 2025. Accessed August 31, 2026. https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/practice-trends/examining-the-no¬va-food-classification-system-and-healthfulness-of-ultra-processed-foods  
  4. Braesco V, Souchon I, Sauvant P, et al. Ultra-processed foods: how functional is the NOVA system? Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022; 76: 1245–1253. doi:10.1038/s41430-022-01099-1  
  5. Healthy Eating Research. Ultraprocessed foods in the U.S.: recommended definitions and policies. Published May 2026. Accessed August 31, 2026. https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/ultraprocessed-foods-in-the-u-s-recommended-definitions-and-policies/ 
  6. Hess J, Comeau ME, Casperson S, et al. Dietary guidelines meet NOVA: developing a menu for a healthy dietary pattern using ultra-processed foods. 2023;153(8):2472-2481. doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.06.028 
  7. Hitchcock B. Food safety: ‘ultra-processed’ food saves lives, feeds billions. Food Processing website. Published March 2024. Accessed August 31, 2026. https://www.foodprocessing.com/food-safety/article/33038329/food-safety-ultra-processed-food-saves-lives-feeds-billions   
  8. International Dairy Federation. Linking food processing to health outcomes: a simplistic and dangerous approach. Published May 9, 2022. Accessed August 31, 2026. https://shop.fil-idf.org/products/linking-food-processing-to-health-outcomes-a-simplistic-and-dangerous-approach  
  9. Leeuwendaal NK, Stanton C, O’Toole PW, Beresford TP. Fermented foods, health and the gut microbiome. Nutrients. 2022;14(7):1527. doi:10.3390/nu14071527 
  10. Nicklas TA, Saab R, Fulgoni VL. Is flavored milk really a bad beverage choice? The nutritional benefits of flavored milk outweigh the added sugars content. Act Sci Nutr Health. 2022;6(1):114-132. doi:10.31080/ASNH.2022.06.0985 
  11. O’Connor L, Herrick KA, Papier K. Handle with care: challenges associated with ultra-processed foods research. Int J Epidemiol. 2024:53(5):dyae133. doi:10.1093/ije/dyae106  
  12. Petrus, RR, do Amaral Sobral PJ, Tadini CC, Gonçalves CB. The NOVA classification system: A critical perspective in food science. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021;116:603–608. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2021.08.010  
  13. Savaiano DA, Hutkins RW. Yogurt, cultured fermented milk, and health: a systematic review. Nutr Rev. 2021;79(5):599-614. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa013 
  14. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. SACN Statement on Processed Foods and Health: Summary Report. Office for Health Improvement and Disparities website. Published July 11, 2023. Accessed August 31, 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on-processed-foods-and-health/sacn-statement-on-processed-foods-and-health-summary-report 
  15. Trumbo PR, Bleiweiss-Sande R, Campbell JK, et al. Toward a science-based classification of processed foods to support meaningful research and effective health policies. Front Nutr. 2024; 11. doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1389601  
  16. US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030. 10th Ed. 2026. Accessed January 7, 2026. Available at https://www.RealFood.gov.    
  17. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA announces qualified health claim for yogurt and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes. FDA website. Published March 1, 2024. Accessed August 26, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-announces-qualified-health-claim-yogurt-and-reduced-risk-type-2-diabetes  
  18. Weaver CM. Dairy matrix: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts? Nutr Rev. 2021;79(suppl 2):4-15. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuab081 
  19. Zhang M, Dong X, Huang Z, et al. Cheese consumption and multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review and updated meta-analysis of prospective studies. Adv Nutr. 2023;14(5):1170-1186. doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2023.06.007