istockphoto

by Alexandra Holzinger and Emily Shoemaker, VRG interns

Introduction

In recent years, the concept of an “Ultra-processed Food” (UPF) has entered the policy world as a topic of high priority concern nationwide. It stems from the alleged harms that come from your standard junk food; some of which include higher rates of heart failure, high cholesterol, and obesity, becoming significantly more prevalent and publicized issues. The problem? Junk food isn’t a formalized group of foods. They are, however, often categorized by their highly processed nature allowing for fillers, additives, and sweeteners to bulk up the product while reducing its vitamin content and other nutrition values.

History and Context

Thus, the concept of an UPF was born. Researchers at the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition (housed at the University of São Paulo in Brazil) broke up the food we eat into three major categories, called the NOVA food classification system.¹ The study was done in 2010 as a result of “the obesity pandemic” that was arising globally.² The groups went as follows: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods (for more information, see Ultra-processed or Smartly Processed? ). They found that diets consisting mainly of UPF were linked to increased “risk of obesity and other nutrition-related chronic diseases.”²

While their article does use some general rules for classification, the main qualifier for a UPF is “food products that are ready to eat or ready to heat with little or no preparation,” resulting from “the processing of several foodstuffs”. This definition does not clearly distinguish between unhealthily processed food and food specifically processed to be more healthy and nutritious for the sake of a person’s diet.² The NOVA system specifies that foods with preservatives and fortifiers are considered minimally processed, however some state governments in the U.S. have adopted similar definitions, without specifically categorizing fortified foods.¹

 The Five Definitions

As state governments began to take an interest in UPFs, they needed a solid way to define them. Specifically, many states focused on the current UPF content in school lunches as children are limited to the variety of meals offered in their cafeteria. In fact, all states that we found at this time which have taken a stance on UPF have done so in the context of ensuring that students are served healthy school lunches. The only exception to this scope is New York, who has elected to require education on UPF be taught to kids in public schools instead. Inspired by the NOVA food classification system, state legislatures are hoping that these new regulations will operate as a means of protecting the nutritional integrity of public school lunches, ultimately aiming to promote health in the nation’s youth.³

Each state’s UPF regulations prevent school cafeterias from serving foods that fit that state’s definition of an ultra-processed food, but protect the students’ right to bring any food in a packed lunch. There are five general definitions total, with two being more common than the rest. The most common definition has been dubbed “the standard 11” (utilized by Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Arizona, and Utah). These state regulations define ultra-processed foods as any food or beverage that contains potassium bromate, propylparaben, titanium dioxide, brominated vegetable oil, yellow dye 5, yellow dye 6, blue dye 1, blue dye 2, green dye 3, red dye 3, or red dye 40.^4-14

Some states are regulating school menus to allow only a percentage of listed items to be UPFs, and others propose total bans. In South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Arizona, and Utah, the associated bill has already been enacted. However, for Florida and Texas, their bills have since died, in both cases due to a full ban being impractical for their existing school systems. In Missouri, New Jersey, and North Carolina, the proposed bill has been referred to other committees for further consideration.

Other states have taken to grouping by a food’s general contents, commonly defining ultra-processed foods as any food or beverage that contains high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, added sugar, or nonnutritive sweeteners; surface-active agents, emulsifiers, stabilizers and thickeners, propellants, aerating agents, gases, colors and coloring adjuncts, flavoring agents and adjuvants, flavor enhancers, nonnutritive sweeteners.^15-17 Three legislatures are currently working on or with bills under this definition: California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. All three propose a full ban on UPF in public school lunches.

California has enacted this bill into law, also banning “restricted school foods,” which evidently cause chronic diseases, are hyperpalatable, or are high in saturated fat, added sugar, or salt.¹⁵ Illinois’ version of this bill is currently in the House Rules Committee for further review, before it will eventually be moved to the House floor for a final vote.¹⁶ As for Pennsylvania, the bill is pending in the House Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee after referral on April 21, 2025.¹⁷ Its definition breaks UPF up into healthy and unhealthy categories using “healthy” as defined by the FDA, with only “unhealthy” UPF being restricted.

Massachusetts has created a unique definition for ultra-processed foods, including foods that contain substances never or rarely used in kitchens and additives designed to make food more palatable, appealing, or preservable. This includes high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, flavors, flavor enhancers, colors, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, nitrates, nitrites, preservatives, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling, and glazing agents.^18-20 This bill is yet to be passed as of the time of writing of this article, and is currently pending in the House Ways and Means Committee. Its scope has been highly contested, as there are very few verifiable ways to determine the “substances never or rarely used in kitchens.” Even if that hurdle could be jumped, banning all foods that have added sweeteners, thickeners, flavors, hydrolysed proteins, and nitrate preservatives bans the vast majority of foods found in your typical lunch box, such as most breads, most deli meats, most condiments, and many plant-based meat substitutes.

West Virginia’s definition of a UPF combines aspects of both Massachusetts’ and California’s bills, banning a food or beverage product that is industrially manufactured using a series of mechanical, chemical, or biological processes not typically performed in a household kitchen; as well as foods containing any two or more ingredients whose primary purpose is to enhance palatability, texture, appearance, or shelf stability.^21,22 The bill was introduced and passed through both chambers, but failed to be signed by the governor before the legislative session ended in March, 2026. Its scope faced many of the same problems as Massachusetts.

The last state with an ultra-processed food definition is New York, the only state not regulating UPFs inclusion in school lunches and instead focusing on educating kids on their harms as well as labeling laws. ^3,23,24 A UPF is defined as any food or beverage that contains high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, added sugar, preservatives, or artificial ingredients. This bill is active in the Assembly Education Committee. Its scope has very little impact on an UPFs availability and mainly affects their labeling and public image.

Effects on Vegan Diets

Each state’s definition of an ultra-processed food leaves various foods excluded. Though many foods linked to chronic disease are predictably excluded from school lunch, many nutritious vegan and vegetarian staples such as plant milks, plant-based meat alternatives, nutritional yeast, and other fortified foods are left with varying levels of accessibility.

According to the standard 11, plant milks, plant-based meats, nutritional yeast, and other fortified products are not considered UPF. However, due to the presence of emulsifiers and stabilizers, plant milks and plant meats that contain emulsifiers or stabilizers could be banned from schools in Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Massachusetts, if the bills are enacted. Plant-based milks that have been staples in school lunches such as Pacific Food, Kikkoman Pearl, Ripple, 8th Continent, and Silk Soy all contain at least one of the following emulsifiers or stabilizers: xanthan gum, carrageenan, soy lecithin, sunflower lecithin, gum arabic, guar gum, gellan gum, and locust bean gum.^25-29 As for plant-based meats, popular brands such as Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger include methylcellulose as the primary emulsion stabilizer.^30,31 Though California’s bill also rejects emulsifiers and stabilizers; soy milk, rice milk, almond milk, and other similar nondairy milks are specifically exempt.

Additionally, West Virginia’s definition includes foods and beverages that are industrially manufactured using processes that are “not typically performed in a household kitchen” and creates unclear boundaries. The formulation processes for fortified products are not generally conducted in household kitchens, making their processing classification uncertain.

Conclusion

While not all states have begun classifying UPFs, the vast majority that have generally leave vegan diets alone. Of the 15 states with UPF definitions in play or previously in play, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Illinois, and Pennsylvania would apparently ban plant milks and plant meats from being served in public school lunches due to the emulsifiers and stabilizers present. Massachusetts and West Virginia (if the bill is reintroduced) may additionally ban fortified products from being served, though it isn’t currently clear how those distinctions will be made. It is important to note, however, that many of these bills are early on in their approval process, and it is unknown if exceptions will be made as these laws move through their respective legislatures. We’ll be interested in the testimony of manufacturers of various plant-based products.

For more information on UPFs legislation at the federal level, [insert link to federal bill article here].

References

1. Food classification Nova | nupens. (2023). In Nupens | Center for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Health. https://nupens.fsp.usp.br/en/food-classification-nova/
2. Monteiro CA, Levy RB, Claro R M, et al. A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 2010;26:2039–2049
3. An act to amend the education law, in relation to requiring instruction on nutrition in schools, no. A11087, The New York State Senate (2026). https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A11087
4. Ultra-Processed Food, no. SB 1826, The Florida Senate (2025). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/1826
5. Relating to prohibiting ultraprocessed food from being served or sold to students in public schools., (2025) (testimony of Partisan Bill), 89(R) HB 3292, Texas Legislature (2025). https://capitol.texas.gov/Search/DocViewer.aspx?DocId=89RHB032921B&AllWords=&AnyWords=ultraprocessed&ExactWords=&CustomWords=&DocType=B
6. SNAP Lunches no. S. 589, South Carolina General Assembly (2025). https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/589.htm
7. SNAP Lunches no. H. 4339, South Carolina General Assembly (2025), https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4339.htm
8. AL HB580. Alison Legislature State Alabama (2026). https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2025RS/HB580-int.pdf
9. AN ACT Relating to School Nutrition 25Rs HB 439. Kentucky General Assembly (2025). https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/25rs/hb439.html
10. Ultra Processed Foods in Schools, MHB2887, Missouri House of Representatives. (2026). https://house.mo.gov/billdocumentmobile.aspx?year=2026&code=r%20&bill=hb2887
11. An Act Concerning Ultraprocessed Food, S946, New Jersey Legislature. (2026) https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2026/S946/bill-text?f=S1000&n=946_I1
12. House Bill 874, North Carolina General Assembly. (2025). https://www.ncleg.gov/billlookup/2025/h874
13. Arizona Healthy Schools Act, no. 2164, Arizona House of Representatives (2025). https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1R/laws/0052.pdf
14. Foods Additives in Schools, no. HB0402, Utah House of Representatives (2025). https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0402.html
15. Pupil nutrition: restricted school foods and ultraprocessed foods of concern: prohibition, no. AB-1264, California Legislative Information (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264
16. House Bill 5507, Illinois General Assembly (2026). https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=5507&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=167481&SessionID=114
17. An act Amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), entitled “An act relating to the public school system, including certain provisions applicable as well to private and parochial schools; amending, revising, consolidating and changing the laws relating thereto,” in school health services, providing for unhealthy ultra-processed food prohibited in competitive Foods.”, no. HB1132, The General Assembly of Pennsylvania (2025). https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/text/PDF/2025/0/HB1132/PN1417
18. An Act Relative to Healthy School Lunches, no. S.401, General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2025). https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S401
19. An Act Relative to Healthy School Lunches, no. H.4562, General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2025). https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H4562
20. An Act Relative to Healthy School Lunches, no. H.539, General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2025). https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H539
21. West Virginia Code §18-5D-3A. Unsafe food additives prohibited. https://code.wvlegislature.gov/18-5D-3A/ (accessed July 26th, 2026)
22. To Ban Ultra-processed Foods (Exempt Drinks) from Schools in West Virginia, no. HB5481, West Virginia Legislature (2026). https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb5481%20intr.htm&yr=2026&sesstype=RS&i=5481
23. An act to amend the agriculture and markets law and the public health law, in relation to food and food product advertising, no. S7487B, The New York State Senate (2026).
24. An act to amend the agriculture and markets law and the public health law, in relation to food and food product advertising, no. S7487C, The New York State Senate (2026).
25. 8th Continent Original Soymilk, half gallon, Price Rite. (2026). https://www.priceritemarketplace.com/sm/planning/rsid/127/product/8th-continent-original-soymilk-half-gallon-00053859070663 (accessed July 26th, 2026)
26. Original Dairy-Free Plant-Based Milk, Ripple Foods (2026). https://dev.ripplefoods.com/original-plant-milk/ (accessed July 26th, 2026)
27. PEARL® Organic Soymilk Smart Original, Kikkoman USA (2026). https://kikkomanusa.com/products/pearl-organic-soymilk-smart-original/ (accessed July 26th, 2026)
28. Pacific Foods® Original Ultra Soy Milk, Plant Based Milk, Campbells Food Service (2026). https://www.campbellsfoodservice.com/product/ultra-soy-original-beverage/ (accessed July 26th, 2026)
29. Original Soymilk | Silk®, Silk (2026). https://silk.com/plant-based-products/soymilk/original-soymilk/ (accessed July 26th, 2026)
30. FAQ, Impossible Foods (2026). https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018937494-What-are-the-ingredients-in-Impossible-Beef-Meat-From-Plants (accessed July 26th, 2026)
31. Beyond Burger | Vegan Patties with Avocado Oil | Beyond, Beyond (2026). https://www.beyondmeat.com/en-US/products/the-beyond-burger/beyond-burger (accessed July 26th, 2026)