The guidelines recommend avoiding 'highly processed foods' but do not provide a clear operational definition. How adequate is this guidance for implementation in federal nutrition programs (school meals, WIC, SNAP)

Answer Explanations

• Very inadequate—creates confusion and is unenforceable

  user-74194
  Again, the swamp of processed food categories (NOVA is the worst) renders this recommendation useless.
• Inadequate—lacks specificity needed for implementation

  user-269790
  Not all processed foods are equal the current guidelines lack specifics that would facilitate implementations.
• Inadequate—lacks specificity needed for implementation

  user-756315
  The recommendation to “avoid highly processed foods” is inadequate for federal program implementation because major nutrition programs, such as school meals, WIC, and SNAP, require clear, operational definitions to determine eligibility, compliance, and procurement standards. Experts note that the term highly processed has no universally accepted definition, and the Guidelines themselves do not clarify it, making the advice difficult to translate into policy or enforceable standards. The Institute of Food Technologists review explicitly points out that because the term is undefined, it should always be clearly defined when used, underscoring that the current guidance is too vague for practical use in federal systems that rely on precise regulatory criteria. 
  
  
• Somewhat adequate

  user-323548
  The NOVA system exists for those who want to use it, and I think most people can intuitively grasp the difference between high processed and otherwise to the extent necessary.
• Very inadequate—creates confusion and is unenforceable

  user-573501
  The meaning of this term is confusing. Does it refer to how the food is actually processed (e.g. baking, frying etc) or to the formulation of the food (e.g. is it a nutrient dense food or an energy dense food? Source of added sugars, sodium, saturated fats?)
• Needs immediate clarification with regulatory definition

  user-37602
  In food safety and quality, there still lacks a compelling definition of the phrase ultra processed. Clarification of the term is necessary. 
• Undecided (please explain)

  user-10478
  UPF は必ずしも有害というわけではありません。
• Somewhat adequate

  user-890708
  不要过度加工食物
• Very inadequate—creates confusion and is unenforceable

  user-543438
  90% (or more!) of items in the grocery store are 'highly processed foods'. Unless someone has their own farm, this is pretty much impossible to carryout. 
• Inadequate—lacks specificity needed for implementation

  user-64256
  The new guideline to avoid highly processed foods is conceptually powerful but operationally inadequate for consistent federal program implementation, primarily due to the lack of a standardized definition. While state-level actions are beginning, the absence of a unified federal definition creates challenges for nationwide programs.  The guideline's technical definition (“engineered food-like item... with industrially manufactured chemical additives”) is subjective for procurement officers and retailers. Without a clear "yes/no" list or nutrient criteria, consistent application across thousands of schools and stores is difficult. Many shelf-stable, fortified foods used in feeding programs undergo processing for safety and nutrition. Strictly avoiding all "highly processed" foods could reduce affordable options and increase food waste and costs.
• Inadequate—lacks specificity needed for implementation

  user-284488
  What is a highly processed food? And are all highly processed foods equally unhealthy? I don’t think lumping things in by the level of processing in itself indicates whether food is healthy or not.
• Somewhat adequate

  user-365674
  If you read the guidelines it seems relatively clear to me. If it comes in a package it is highly processed. Eating out is trickier. 
• Somewhat adequate

  user-423252
  Yes. It is good to avoid processed food - particularly those that contain sugar.
• Somewhat adequate

  user-863596
  The guidelines should be modified as given above and also below:
  Traditional foods are feasible and affordable in every country. The use of high-protein substitutes for animal-derived foods, such as soybean products such as tofu and Tempe, millets, beans, lentils, peas (400g/day), green vegetables, fruits, and nuts (400g/day), as well as vegetable oils, low-fat dairy products, and culinary spices, with meat (sea-foods) and poultry, may be beneficial with adequate protein, in promoting health and preventing NCDs. 
• Very adequate—the general principle is sufficient

  user-206808
  Processed food clearly define the standard in my view point
• Needs immediate clarification with regulatory definition

  user-980128
  Implementation requires precision: Federal programs (school meals, WIC, SNAP) depend on clear, enforceable criteria for procurement, eligibility, and compliance. A vague term like “highly processed” is insufficient for programmatic use.
  Risk of inconsistent interpretation: Without an operational definition, agencies, vendors, and states may apply heterogeneous standards, undermining equity and accountability.
  Existing frameworks could be leveraged: Systems such as NOVA or ingredient- and processing–based thresholds (e.g., additives, formulation complexity) offer starting points but require formal adoption and adaptation.
  Legal and administrative exposure: Ambiguity increases the likelihood of implementation delays, litigation, and industry pushback, weakening policy impact.
  Bottom line: The principle is scientifically defensible, but immediate regulatory clarification is essential for effective, fair, and scalable implementation across federal nutrition programs.
• Very adequate—the general principle is sufficient

  user-385373
  Cutting out ultra-processed foods can lead to a range of health benefits, from improved nutrition and digestion to better energy levels and reduced risk of chronic diseases. By learning how to identify and avoid these foods, making gradual changes, and focusing on whole, natural alternatives, you can enhance your overall well-being and embrace a healthier lifestyle. Each step you take towards reducing ultra-processed foods is a step towards a more vibrant and healthful life.
• Needs immediate clarification with regulatory definition

  user-517643
  the question begs the answer
• Inadequate—lacks specificity needed for implementation

  user-45601
  More detailed and clear instructions would have been more helpful.
• Inadequate—lacks specificity needed for implementation

  user-420581
  While the recommendation to avoid highly processed foods is directionally consistent with current evidence, the lack of a clear operational definition limits its usefulness for implementation in federal nutrition programs such as school meals, WIC, and SNAP.

  Without standardized criteria (e.g., processing classification systems, nutrient thresholds, or ingredient-based definitions), program administrators and food service providers are left with substantial ambiguity, increasing the risk of inconsistent application across settings.

  For large-scale federal programs, clearer guidance is needed to translate this principle into actionable procurement standards, menu planning, and compliance monitoring.
• Somewhat adequate

  user-566604
  The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Dietary Guidelines) is the cornerstone for federal nutrition programs and provides food-based recommendations to promote health, help prevent diet-related chronic diseases, and meet nutrient needs