MAHA Report on Ultra-Processed Food: What It Means
The Make America Healthy Again commission has placed ultra-processed food at the center of federal health policy discussions. Here is what has been proposed, what the FDA and USDA are doing, and what it could mean for the food system.
Information current as of February 2026
Policy developments change frequently. Check official government sources for the latest updates.
What Is MAHA and Why Ultra-Processed Food Is Central to Its Mission
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) commission is a federal advisory body established to examine the connections between the American food system and the nation's chronic disease crisis. The commission was created with a broad mandate: identify systemic factors contributing to rising rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other diet-related conditions, and recommend policy changes to address them.
Ultra-processed food has emerged as a central focus of the commission's work. Research published over the past decade has linked high consumption of ultra-processed foods to increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and metabolic disorders. The commission has cited these findings extensively in its reports, framing ultra-processed food not as a matter of individual dietary choice but as a structural feature of the food supply that warrants policy intervention.
The commission's recommendations span multiple federal agencies, including the FDA, USDA, and HHS. While the commission itself does not have regulatory authority, its reports serve as formal recommendations to the executive branch and can influence agency rulemaking priorities, federal dietary guidelines, and congressional action.
~60%
of calories in the average American diet come from ultra-processed food
$4.1T
estimated annual cost of diet-related chronic disease in the U.S.
73%
of packaged foods in U.S. grocery stores classified as ultra-processed
Key MAHA Commission Reports and Recommendations
The commission has released several reports and white papers since its formation. The recommendations most relevant to ultra-processed food fall into five major areas.
1. Federal Definition of Ultra-Processed Food
The commission recommended that the FDA and USDA jointly develop a standardized federal definition of ultra-processed food. This definition would serve as the basis for labeling requirements, dietary guidance, and federal food program standards. The commission suggested using the NOVA classification framework as a starting point, while acknowledging that adaptations may be needed for regulatory purposes.
2. School Meal Program Reform
The commission recommended phasing out ultra-processed foods from federally funded school meal programs, including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. This recommendation aligns with state-level efforts already underway, such as California's AB 1264, which bans ultra-processed food in school cafeterias on a phased timeline through 2035.
3. SNAP and WIC Program Standards
The commission proposed updating eligibility criteria for foods purchasable through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Currently, SNAP places virtually no restrictions on the types of food that can be purchased. The commission suggested either restricting ultra-processed products or creating incentive structures that make minimally processed foods more affordable within these programs.
4. Front-of-Package Labeling
The commission recommended that the FDA develop front-of-package labels that communicate processing level to consumers. Several countries, including Chile, Mexico, and Israel, have already implemented warning labels on ultra-processed foods. The commission's proposal would require products meeting the ultra-processed definition to carry a visible indicator, helping consumers make informed choices when reading food labels at the grocery store.
5. Reformulation Incentives
Rather than relying solely on restrictions, the commission proposed tax incentives and grant programs to encourage food manufacturers to reformulate products with fewer industrial additives. This carrot-and-stick approach aims to shift the food supply gradually without creating sudden disruptions to availability or affordability.
The FDA/USDA Request for Information on Defining Ultra-Processed Food
In response to the commission's recommendations, the FDA and USDA jointly issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comment on how to define ultra-processed food for federal regulatory purposes. This RFI represents the first formal step by U.S. regulatory agencies toward establishing an official definition.
The RFI asked for input on several key questions: whether the NOVA classification system is the appropriate framework for a federal definition, how to handle borderline cases (such as fortified cereals or yogurts with added sweeteners), whether a binary classification or a tiered system would be more useful, and what scientific evidence links ultra-processed food consumption to specific health outcomes.
Thousands of comments were submitted during the public comment period from researchers, food manufacturers, consumer advocacy groups, registered dietitians, and individual citizens. The agencies are currently reviewing these submissions. No timeline has been announced for the next step, which could range from publishing a proposed definition to issuing voluntary guidance or commissioning further research.
Why a Federal Definition Matters
Without a standardized definition, terms like "ultra-processed" have no legal meaning in the United States. Food companies can market products as "minimally processed" or "made with real ingredients" without any regulatory standard governing those claims. A federal definition would create a consistent framework for labeling, food program eligibility, and consumer education. Our Processing Score guide explains how ingredient-based analysis can classify products by processing level.
Important Context
An RFI is not a proposed rule. It is one of the earliest stages of the federal regulatory process. Even if the FDA and USDA proceed with a formal definition, the rulemaking process typically takes several years, involves multiple rounds of public comment, and can be influenced by changes in administration, congressional action, and legal challenges.
What a Federal UPF Policy Could Mean
If the commission's recommendations move forward through regulatory channels, the effects would touch multiple parts of the food system. Here is what different stakeholders could expect.
For Consumers
- Clearer labeling. Front-of-package indicators could make it easier to identify ultra-processed products without reading entire ingredient lists.
- Better school meals. Children in federally funded meal programs could see fewer industrial additives and more whole-food-based options. Our kids and UPF guide covers why this matters.
- Potential price shifts. If SNAP incentivizes minimally processed foods, it could make fresh produce and whole foods more accessible to low-income households.
- More reformulated products. Manufacturers responding to regulation often simplify ingredient lists, which could improve options across grocery store shelves.
For the Food Industry
- Compliance costs. A federal definition would require companies to classify products and potentially reformulate those falling above the threshold.
- Labeling changes. New front-of-package requirements would involve packaging redesigns and regulatory filings.
- Market shifts. Companies already offering minimally processed alternatives could gain competitive advantage. Others may need to invest in reformulation.
- Supply chain adjustments. Manufacturers supplying school meal programs and institutional food service would face the most immediate pressure to adapt.
Industry Response and Ongoing Debate
The commission's recommendations and the FDA/USDA RFI have generated significant debate among public health advocates, industry groups, and policymakers. The discussion reflects genuine complexity rather than simple for-or-against positions.
Supporters Argue
- The current food supply contributes directly to chronic disease rates that cost trillions in healthcare spending
- Existing nutrition labeling focused solely on nutrients fails to capture the health effects of ultra-processing
- Federal food programs should not subsidize products linked to poor health outcomes
- Other countries have successfully implemented UPF-related policies without major market disruptions
Critics Contend
- The NOVA classification is too broad and would capture affordable, nutrient-dense foods like fortified bread and yogurt
- Restricting SNAP purchases raises equity concerns, as ultra-processed foods are often the most affordable and shelf-stable options
- Processing level alone does not determine nutritional quality, and a nutrient-focused approach is more scientifically sound
- Federal regulation could increase food costs and reduce consumer choice without proportionate health benefits
The Nuance in the Middle
Many nutrition researchers and dietitians occupy a middle ground. They acknowledge that ultra-processed food consumption is associated with negative health outcomes, but caution that blunt regulatory tools may have unintended consequences for food access and affordability. Several RFI commenters proposed tiered approaches that distinguish between, for example, a fortified whole-grain cereal and a candy bar -- both technically ultra-processed under NOVA, but with meaningfully different nutritional profiles. Our ingredients-to-avoid guide explores these distinctions in practical terms.
Timeline of Key Events
The following timeline tracks major developments related to the MAHA commission and federal ultra-processed food policy. Events are listed in chronological order.
2025 Q1
MAHA Commission Formed
The commission was formally established with a mandate to investigate the role of food systems in America's chronic disease crisis.
2025 Q2
Initial Reports Published
The commission released its first set of reports identifying ultra-processed food as a primary driver of diet-related chronic disease and recommending federal action.
2025 Q3
FDA/USDA Issue Request for Information
The agencies jointly published an RFI seeking public comment on how to define ultra-processed food for federal regulatory purposes, marking the first formal acknowledgment by U.S. regulators that processing level may warrant classification.
2025 Q4
Public Comment Period Closes
Thousands of submissions were received from researchers, industry groups, consumer advocates, and individuals. The agencies began internal review of the comments.
2026 Q1
Commission Releases Follow-Up Recommendations
Updated reports refined the commission's proposals on school meal reform, SNAP/WIC modifications, and front-of-package labeling. The FDA and USDA continue to review RFI comments with no announced timeline for next steps.
What Comes Next
As of February 2026, the FDA and USDA have not announced whether they will proceed with a proposed definition, issue voluntary guidance, or take other action. The commission's recommendations do not have the force of law on their own -- implementation requires either agency rulemaking or congressional legislation. Both paths involve extended timelines and political considerations that make near-term action uncertain.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the MAHA commission?
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) commission is a federal advisory body established to evaluate the role of diet, food systems, and environmental factors in chronic disease. It was formed as part of a broader effort to address rising rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other diet-related conditions in the United States. The commission includes members drawn from public health, nutrition science, agriculture, and food policy backgrounds.
Does the FDA/USDA Request for Information mean ultra-processed food will be regulated?
Not necessarily. A Request for Information (RFI) is a preliminary step in the federal rulemaking process. It gathers public input, scientific evidence, and stakeholder perspectives before any formal regulation is proposed. The RFI on defining ultra-processed food signals that federal agencies are taking the concept seriously, but it does not commit them to any specific regulatory action. Many RFIs lead to further study or voluntary guidance rather than binding rules.
How would a federal UPF definition differ from the NOVA classification?
The NOVA system, developed by researchers at the University of Sao Paulo, classifies all foods into four groups based on the extent and purpose of industrial processing. A federal definition could adopt NOVA as its framework, modify it, or create an entirely new system. Key differences might include specific ingredient thresholds, exemptions for fortified foods, or a tiered approach rather than a binary ultra-processed/not classification. The RFI specifically asks for input on whether NOVA is the right framework or whether alternatives would be more practical for regulatory purposes.
What would change for consumers if these recommendations are implemented?
Potential changes could include updated nutrition labels that indicate processing level, revised standards for foods eligible for purchase through SNAP and WIC, reformulated products in school meal programs, and new front-of-package labeling requirements. However, most of these changes would take years to implement even if adopted. In the near term, the most visible effect would likely be increased public awareness of ultra-processed food as a distinct category, which could influence purchasing decisions independent of any regulation.
Is the MAHA commission a partisan initiative?
The commission was established under the current administration, and its creation is associated with specific political figures. However, concern about ultra-processed food and diet-related chronic disease spans the political spectrum. Public health researchers, pediatricians, and nutrition scientists across diverse political affiliations have called for greater scrutiny of ultra-processed food. The policy recommendations themselves draw on decades of peer-reviewed research that predates the commission. Whether specific proposals advance will depend on legislative support, agency rulemaking priorities, and the evolving political landscape.
Continue Learning
California UPF School Ban →
How California became the first state to phase out ultra-processed food in school cafeterias with AB 1264
What Are Ultra-Processed Foods? →
Understand the NOVA classification system, processing levels, and the science behind ultra-processing
Health Effects of UPF →
Review the research linking ultra-processed food consumption to chronic disease, obesity, and other health outcomes
Disclaimer: All tools and data visualizations are provided for educational and informational purposes only. They are not intended as health, medical, or dietary advice. Product formulations change frequently — always check the actual label for current ingredients and nutrition facts before making purchasing decisions. Consult healthcare professionals for personalized dietary guidance.