The FDA's New Stance on Ultra-Processed Foods: What Changes at the Grocery Store

On a Wednesday in late April 2025, then-HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stood at a podium in Washington and announced that the FDA would push food companies to strip petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the U.S. food supply by the end of 2026. That single announcement quietly set off the most aggressive reshaping of the American grocery store in a generation. Fifteen months later, the regulatory landscape looks nothing like it did before.

This week, an estimated 9,000 researchers, clinicians, and industry scientists will gather at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, for NUTRITION 2026, the American Society for Nutrition's flagship meeting, running July 25–28. The program includes a slate of late-breaking sessions on ultra-processed food (UPF) classification, synthetic additive safety, and the nutritional needs of the roughly 1 in 8 U.S. adults now estimated to be taking a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Many of those sessions will land while the FDA is finalizing the first-ever federal definition of ultra-processed foods — a definition Kennedy said in early June is currently awaiting White House approval.

For consumers, the stakes are concrete. Depending on how the FDA defines UPFs, a color-coded, front-of-pack labeling system could land on tens of thousands of products within two years. Several major food manufacturers are already quietly reformulating ahead of the change. Here is what the science and the regulatory machinery actually say — and what changes for shoppers.

The FDA's 2026 Priority Deliverables on Ultra-Processed Foods

The FDA's Human Foods Program 2026 Priority Deliverables, published earlier this year, put the matter bluntly: “FDA is focused on identifying and reducing risks arising from the high consumption rates of ultra-processed foods (UPFs).” That is a notable shift for an agency that, for most of the past decade, treated UPFs as a research curiosity rather than a regulatory target.

The defining move is the attempt to, at last, define UPFs. There is currently no single authoritative U.S. definition. Most researchers use the Nova classification system, developed at the University of São Paulo, which sorts foods into four tiers — from unprocessed or minimally processed, to ultra-processed industrial formulations made with ingredients you would not find in a home kitchen. But Nova is a research tool, not a legal standard, and it has awkward edge cases: many mass-produced whole-grain breads, flavored yogurts, and infant formulas score as ultra-processed under Nova even though dietitians generally recommend them.

A May 2026 technical report from Healthy Eating Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, tried to cut through that tension. The expert panel recommended that FDA exempt products from UPF-targeted policies if they meet a modified version of the FDA's existing “Healthy” claim, which requires minimum amounts of healthful ingredients like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and dairy while limiting saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar. That recommendation gives the FDA a pragmatic off-ramp: a food can be technically ultra-processed and still not be subject to warning labels or marketing restrictions if its nutrient profile is strong.

Behind the policy fight is a quieter regulatory action. In July 2025, the FDA and USDA jointly issued a Request for Information in the Federal Register seeking public data and comment to inform a uniform UPF definition. The comment period was later extended, giving food companies, academic researchers, and consumer groups extra time to weigh in. NUTRITION 2026 will be the first major scientific meeting after that extended comment window closed, which is why so many sessions are focused on refining the definition itself.

The New Research on Food Additives: Preservatives Under Scrutiny

If you want to understand why the FDA is moving with urgency on additives, two 2026 studies illustrate the pressure.

The first, published in The BMJ in early 2026 by a team led by researchers at the University of Paris Cité, examined intake of widely used industrial preservatives and cancer incidence in a large French cohort. They found multiple positive associations between consumption of common preservatives and higher overall cancer incidence. It was observational, so it cannot prove causation — but it expanded on earlier ties between certain emulsifiers and cardiovascular disease.

The second, covered in June 2026 by ScienceDaily, analyzed data from thousands of adults and identified eight common food additives linked to elevated blood pressure. Participants who consumed the highest amounts of non-antioxidant preservatives had a 29% greater risk of hypertension compared with those who consumed the least. The findings echo a separate 2025 review in Frontiers in Nutrition that documented how additives — including emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, and nitrates — can disrupt the gut microbiome and intensify intestinal inflammation.

Separate reporting from CNN in March 2026 documented that at least 111 substances of unknown safety have entered the U.S. food supply under the FDA's Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) self-affirmation loophole. That figure, drawn from EWG analysis, has become a talking point for the current HHS leadership and will likely surface during NUTRITION 2026 panels on chemical safety reform.

The additive most consumers can already feel shifting is synthetic food dye. The April 2025 HHS/FDA announcement directed companies to voluntarily phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes — including Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, and Green 3 — by the end of 2026. Two dyes, Citrus Red 2 and Orange B, are slated for faster revocation. Major manufacturers including Kraft Heinz and General Mills have already announced reformulation timelines. Expect the grocery store shelves to look noticeably less neon by the time NUTRITION 2027 rolls around.

UPFs and Cardiovascular Risk: The Numbers Get Sharper

The scientific consensus on UPFs and health has hardened substantially over the past two years. A 2024 umbrella review in The BMJ synthesized 45 distinct meta-analyses and found direct associations between greater UPF exposure and 32 adverse health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and common mental disorders. That review, coordinated by researchers in Australia and Italy, is the single most cited piece of evidence in the current FDA definition debate.

Two 2026 studies sharpened the cardiovascular link. In February, a team using U.S. national health data reported in ScienceDaily that adults with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods had a 47% higher risk of heart attack or stroke compared with the lowest-intake group. A May 2026 follow-up documented that eating large amounts of UPFs was associated with significantly higher rates of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death.

The pediatric data is equally stark. A meta-analysis of 23 studies on adolescents, highlighted by EurekAlert, found that those with higher UPF consumption had 63% greater odds of overweight or obesity. That figure is why the American Academy of Pediatrics is now openly supportive of front-of-pack labeling for UPFs — a notable shift from five years ago.

But — and this matters for how the FDA writes its final rule — not all ultra-processed foods carry the same risk signal. Several recent studies have shown that ultra-processed whole-grain breads, flavored yogurts, and breakfast cereals do not show the same association with cardiovascular disease as do UPFs high in sodium, sugar, and saturated fat. This is why the Healthy Eating Research panel recommended a nutrient-based exemption, and it is the nuance that will dominate NUTRITION 2026 debates.

The GLP-1 Curveball: A Rewritten Grocery List

No analysis of the current food landscape can ignore GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound. Roughly 1 in 8 U.S. adults now report having used a GLP-1 medication, according to a KFF tracking survey. Their dietary behavior is reshaping the grocery cart in ways that both align with — and complicate — the FDA's anti-UPF push.

A University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture study published in 2025 surveyed GLP-1 users and found significant reductions in their intake of processed foods, soda, refined grains, and red meat. About 70% more respondents reported eating fruits and leafy greens after starting the medication than before. Data from Corbion, an ingredient company, and UC Davis's Food and Health program paint a similar picture: individuals taking GLP-1s report consuming 55% more fruits and vegetables, 65% fewer sugary drinks, and 62% less alcohol. KPMG estimates that adults on GLP-1s consume 21% fewer calories and spend nearly a third less on groceries.

But the shift is not uniformly positive. Because GLP-1s slow gastric emptying and reduce appetite, users are at real risk of sarcopenic muscle loss and inadequate intake of protein, calcium, B vitamins, and fiber. NUTRITION 2026 will feature several sessions on clinical nutrition protocols for GLP-1 patients, including the need for high-protein supplementation and resistance training. That clinical reality is driving a wave of “GLP-1 friendly” product launches — protein-fortified snacks, fiber-enhanced beverages, and portion-controlled meal kits — from food manufacturers trying to capture that market.

The tension: many of those GLP-1-friendly products are themselves ultra-processed. A protein-fortified bar with 20 grams of whey isolate, artificial sweeteners, and shelf-stabilizers may be clinically useful for someone on Wegovy who cannot face a chicken breast — and it may also fall squarely into the FDA's UPF definition. Expect this collision between clinical nutrition and public health policy to surface repeatedly at NUTRITION 2026.

What Actually Changes at the Grocery Store

So what should a shopper actually do with this vortex of regulatory and scientific activity? Three near-term shifts are already underway:

1. Dyes will start disappearing faster. With the FDA's end-of-2026 phase-out target, manufacturers are accelerating reformulations. Products that previously used Red 40 or Yellow 5 — including snack chips, fruit snacks, and some breakfast cereals — are shifting to natural alternatives like beet extract, annatto, and turmeric. The colors will look softer; the taste should not change.

2. Front-of-pack labeling is coming — eventually. Kennedy has publicly backed a color-coded warning system modeled on Mexico's and Chile's. A formal proposed rule is expected after the UPF definition clears the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Realistic timeline: no later than 2028. When it lands, expect it to be contested in court by industry trade groups.

3. “Healthy” is being redefined in parallel. The FDA finalized an updated “Healthy” nutrient claim rule in late 2024 that sets stricter thresholds for added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat while requiring meaningful amounts of food groups like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and dairy. Under the Healthy Eating Research panel's recommendation, products meeting that updated Healthy claim could be exempted from any future UPF labeling requirement — which means the FDA's existing framework is becoming the de facto safe harbor for manufacturers.

For shoppers, the practical takeaway is that the ingredient list remains the most powerful tool on a package. The strongest current evidence suggests prioritizing foods with short, recognizable ingredient lists; limiting products with synthetic dyes, artificial sweeteners, and multiple emulsifiers; and not over-indexing on the technical classification of foods like whole-grain bread, plain yogurt with live cultures, or minimally sweetened breakfast cereals that happen to be industrially processed.

NUTRITION 2026 will not resolve the UPF debate. But the data presented there will shape how the FDA writes its definition, how the food industry reformulates in response, and what shows up on grocery store shelves through the rest of this decade. The era of treating ultra-processed foods as a vague concern is over. The era of regulating them has begun.