-Farm News photo by Karen Schwaller
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has formally expressed concerns regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approaching definition of “ultra-processed foods,” which the organization says could be damaging for the pork industry.

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has, formally expressed concerns regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approaching definition of “ultra-processed foods,” (UPF) which the organization says could be damaging for the pork industry.

This is in light of ongoing discussions with the Trump administration ahead of the release of “Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”

NPPC states the term “ultra-processed foods” is one that could inflict harm upon the industry as it relates to consumer beliefs and choices.

“Consumer health and safety are priorities of U.S. pork producers, and ensuring Americans have access to pork — a nutrient-dense protein — will help improve the nation’s nutrition and positively impact health. Using the term ‘ultra-processed’ could unintentionally misclassify nutrient-dense foods simply because they are processed, and prompt consumers not to eat them. The harsh classification could also restrict pork products in federal food programs,” said officials from NPPC.

NPPC states there are three basic strategies the FDA should consider before formalizing the UPF labeling, including not classifying food as ultra-processed because it does not fit into one of the three categories (out of four) of what they call “problematic” NOVA food classification system.

The NOVA classification system categorizes foods into four groups based on the degree of processing. It is designed to help identify and limit the consumption of ultra-processed foods, which are often high in sugar, fat, and salt, and low in fiber and nutrients.

Group 1 of the NOVA classification system includes unprocessed or minimally processed foods such as fruits and raw meat. Group 2 includes culinary ingredients such as oils, salt, and sugar; Group 3 includes processed foods like canned vegetables and cheese, and Group 4 includes ultra-processed foods, which are industrial formulations with additives — such as soft drinks, cookies, and instant noodles.

“This classification system focuses only on processing, not the nutritional benefits of foods,” said NPPC. “If the NOVA definition is applied to foods, especially agricultural products such as pork, they will be negatively categorized as ‘ultra-processed foods.’ This approach would eliminate access to nutrient-dense foods and be counterproductive to the overall goal of improving health and decreasing chronic disease in America.”

NPPC said the FDA should not categorize food as “ultra-processed” if it contains ingredients which enhance food safety, shelf stability, and nutrient availability. They said such ingredients protect public health and allow nutrient-dense foods to reach consumers.

“The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) has supported the United States as a leader for a safe food supply since 1938. As such, it has supported public health through the approval and use of food additives that keep our food safe, shelf stable, and nutrient rich. These food additives typically are ingredients that are listed at the end of an ingredient list because they contribute the least amount per weight of the finished product.

“However, they play a critical role in food safety, shelf stability, and nutrient availability. For example, pork utilizes ingredients to protect against foodborne pathogens by inhibiting growth of bacteria. Meats such as pork need to be preserved safely to prevent oxidation and spoilage,” officials stated.

NPPC went on to say the FDA needs to ensure an “ultra-processed foods” definition does not conflict with FDA’s “Standards of Identity” regulations, which detail what specific foods must contain, the amount or proportion of ingredients or components, and, sometimes, the method of production or formulation.

“FDA’s Standards of Identity specifically aims to prevent nutrient deficiencies through the enrichment of foods and by protecting against false and misleading statements in food labeling. Establishing an “ultra-processed food” definition would conflict with Standards of Identity because FDA would require Standards of Identity for certain food products while simultaneously discouraging that same food product as an “ultra-processed food.” This would undermine decades of public health policy and transparency for consumers, as well as state-mandated standards,” said NPPC officials.

NPPC spokespersons added that consumers have no need to fear added ingredients for those stated purposes in a world that appears laser-focused on “clean eating.” They said there is no consensus on what constitutes an “ultra-processed food,” and that the FDA should elevate the importance of nutritional composition while also protecting processing and ingredients that promote nutrient bioavailability, food safety, and shelf stability.

“Pork is a nutritious and affordable protein for all Americans,” said NPPC. “Food additives that promote food safety, shelf stability and nutrient availability are critical to safeguarding our food system. They are extensively studied and approved by the FDA, and many have standards accepted by the global food code, ‘Codex Alimentarius.’ Pork is also available in a variety of cuts that can fit different lifestyles and dietary choices, making it an accessible, nutrient-rich option to fit virtually all diets.”

NPPC believes the term “discretionary foods” is a more appropriate term for labeling food products characterized by lower nutritional quality. They said that term would put the conversation back on nutrition as the basis for addressing diet-related chronic disease.

“Classifying foods that are not nutrient-dense as “discretionary foods” would be more in line with the administration’s goals while maintaining consumer choice on whether to eat or drink them,” said NPPC officials. “This terminology would step away from the misguided conversation of processing and place the focus back on nutrition as the basis for improving diet-related chronic disease in America. These discretionary foods would not be promoted as a part of a healthy diet, but instead would be left at the discretion of the consumer.”