US UPF push spotlights why India's definition remains stalled

The US has moved to tighten oversight of ultra-processed foods while India's own definition remains pending. The contrast has renewed questions over whether Indian regulation is keeping pace with a fast-changing food market.US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has often cited UPF as a primary driver of America's chronic disease and obesity epidemicsThe US has taken a step towards bringing ultra-processed foods (UPFs) under a more clearly defined regulatory lens. But as American authorities move to establish their first federal definition of UPFs, India faces a strikingly different question: why has its own effort to define and regulate this rapidly expanding category remained on the backburner?On August 10, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed replacing its voluntary notification system for food ingredients classified as “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) with mandatory notifications.The move is intended to close an information gap that has allowed companies to determine that certain ingredients are GRAS without informing the regulator.At the same time, the FDA and US Department of Agriculture have submitted a proposed federal definition of UPFs for final review, although the definition itself has not yet been made public. The developments are significant because the US has traditionally lacked a government-wide definition of UPFs even as such foods have become deeply embedded in the food supply. The FDA says around 70% of the US food supply consists of foods commonly considered ultra-processed, while children derive more than 60% of their calories from such foods.The US move also comes amid growing scientific concern over the health effects of these foods. Under the widely used NOVA classification, the UPFs go beyond simply being foods high in sugar, salt or fat. This classification, developed by researchers at the University of So Paulo, Brazil, groups foods into four distinct categories based on the nature, extent, and purpose of the industrial processing they undergo.This system defines UPFs as largely or entirely derived from industrial ingredients and processes, saying these often contain little or no intact whole food and may include additives such as emulsifiers, flavour enhancers, colours, sweeteners and stabilisers.Common examples include packaged snacks, sugary drinks, confectionery, instant noodles, mass-produced breads, ready-to-eat meals and some flavoured dairy products.INDIA’S STALLED DEFINITIONFor India, the issue is hardly new. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) began considering a definition and regulatory approach for UPFs around 2021. But the exercise subsequently lost momentum and was put on the backburner, with policy discussions instead largely centred on high-fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods and front-of-pack labelling.That distinction matters.A food can meet conventional nutritional criteria while still being ultra-processed. The concern with UPFs is not merely the quantity of sugar, salt or fat, but the nature of the industrial formulation, processing and additives used to make products highly palatable, convenient, durable and easy to consume.In fact, an earlier FSSAI scientific report itself recognised the distinction between ordinary processed foods and UPFs, describing the latter as ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat products created through industrial processes and often containing preservatives, stabilisers, emulsifiers, sweeteners, flavour enhancers, colours and flavours.The challenge is becoming harder to ignore. India’s Economic Survey 2025-26 noted that retail sales of UPFs surged from $0.9 billion in 2006 to nearly $38 billion in 2019, a roughly 40-fold increase. It also noted that obesity nearly doubled among both men and women over the same period.The changing food environment is visible on the ground too. A 2021 study of food establishments in Delhi-NCR found UPFs available in all stores surveyed, with 156 different UPF products identified across stores, restaurants and mobile food vendors.Researchers concluded that regulations were needed to limit the availability of cheap UPFs and improve access to affordable fruits and vegetables.GROWING EVIDENCE AGAINST UPFsThe scientific case has also moved considerably since FSSAI first examined the issue.A three-part Lancet Series published in late 2025, involving an international consortium of 43 scientists, concluded that UPFs are displacing established dietary patterns, worsening diet quality and are associated with increased risks of multiple chronic diseases.The research linked UPF-heavy dietary patterns to mechanisms including overeating, high energy density and hyper-palatability, while also raising concerns about potentially harmful additives and compounds, pointed out Dr Arun Gupta, co-convener, Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) which has been pushing for bringing UPFs under regulation in India.The Lancet series had shown the 40-fold rise in UPF consumption since 2006 has occurred alongside a doubling of obesity prevalence, although the parallel trends do not by themselves establish that UPFs caused the increase.Against this backdrop, Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) wrote to FSSAI in December 2025 asking the regulator to revive its consideration of UPFs. NAPi argued that the evidence available in 2025 was substantially stronger than when the issue had previously been considered.The group said the Lancet series directly addressed concerns raised earlier by the scientific committee, including whether a UPF definition was globally accepted, how UPFs differ from existing food categories and whether sufficient evidence exists on their health effects.It has argued that NOVA is now widely used in research and policy discussions internationally and that UPFs are distinct from conventional processed foods because of their industrial formulations, fractionated ingredients and cosmetic additives.The advocacy group has rejected the argument that India should wait for more local evidence, saying the Lancet evidence and large cohort studies provide sufficient grounds for action.The American development therefore offers India more than a regulatory comparison.It raises questions whether Indian food regulation is keeping pace with the transformation of the food market, experts say.- EndsPublished On: Aug 13, 2026 16:43 IST