The FDA Loophole That Lets Food Companies Sneak New Additives Into Your Groceries

A new proposal from nutrition researchers suggests the best way to regulate ultra-processed foods is to define them by their absence of whole food ingredients, not by listing banned additives. This approach could close a major regulatory loophole that allows food manufacturers to continuously reformulate products and stay ahead of health-focused policies.

Why Current Food Definitions Keep Failing?

The most widely used definition of ultra-processed foods comes from the Nova classification system, developed by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro. It identifies ultra-processed foods as those that use industrial manufacturing to break down whole foods and contain cosmetic additives like flavoring agents and emulsifiers designed to increase palatability. California's recent law banning ultra-processed foods from school lunches takes a similar approach, defining them by the presence of additives plus high levels of sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat.

But here's the problem: whenever regulators create a list of banned or restricted ingredients, food companies simply create new ones that are chemically similar. This creates what researchers call a perpetual game of "Whack-A-Mole." When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned red dye No. 2 in 1976, companies immediately switched to red dye No. 3 instead, which wasn't banned until last year. The cycle continues because of a regulatory loophole called GRAS, or "generally recognized as safe," which allows food companies to add ingredients to products without FDA review.

"Historically, whenever we have a list of products or ingredients that are banned or subject to regulation, companies will simply create new ingredients or products that are very similar in structure and function," said Alyssa Moran, a nutrition policy researcher and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

What Would a "Negative Definition" Actually Look Like?

Researchers Alyssa Moran, Neha Khandpur, and Christina Roberto published a proposal in Nature Medicine suggesting a different approach: define ultra-processed foods by what they are not, rather than what they contain. Instead of listing every possible additive to avoid, policymakers would identify the basic, whole food ingredients that make a product acceptable, and classify everything else as ultra-processed.

Yogurt serves as a clear example of how this would work. The yogurt category currently lumps together products with just a few basic ingredients alongside dessert-like varieties loaded with additives and sweeteners. Under the new approach, yogurt would be classified as non-ultra-processed if it contains only milk, live cultures, and additions like fruit, nuts, seeds, and honey. Everything else would be labeled ultra-processed. The same logic could apply across other food categories.

"The food supply is constantly changing. We could come up with a list of additives that are markers of ultra-processed foods right now, but a year from now, that list could be completely different," explained Moran.

How to Identify Whole Food Yogurt at the Grocery Store

• Read the ingredient list: Look for products that contain only milk, live active cultures, and optional additions like fruit, honey, nuts, or seeds. If you see more than five ingredients, it's likely ultra-processed.
• Check for sweeteners: Avoid yogurts with added sugars, artificial sweeteners, or sugar alcohols listed in the first five ingredients. Plain yogurt with fruit on the side is a cleaner choice.
• Look for cosmetic additives: Skip products containing thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers, or artificial flavoring agents like "natural flavors" or "vanilla flavoring." These are signs of ultra-processing.

Why This Matters for Clean Eating Policy

The timing of this proposal is significant. The Trump administration is working to create a federal definition of ultra-processed foods, and the U.S. dietary guidelines are expected to take a stance on ultra-processed foods for the first time in their history. Moran describes this as a "pivotal moment" for action on ultra-processed foods, comparable to the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which defined tobacco products and gave the FDA authority to regulate their manufacturing, distribution, and sales.

Once a definition is codified into law, it creates the foundation for broader policies regulating how ultra-processed foods are marketed and sold. This could eventually lead to restrictions similar to those already implemented in California schools, where ultra-processed foods are banned from lunch programs.

What Are the Criticisms of This New Approach?

Not everyone agrees the negative definition is the best path forward. Jim Krieger, executive director of the nonprofit Healthy Food America and a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Washington, raised an important concern: the body of scientific evidence linking ultra-processed foods to harmful health outcomes was built using the Nova definition, not the new proposal. It's unclear whether foods identified as ultra-processed under the new system would pose the same health risks as those classified under Nova.

The food industry also opposes the idea. The Institute of Food Technologists told researchers that defining ultra-processed foods this way "has the potential to stifle innovation in the food industry, something that is needed to better support public health".

Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Global Public Health and co-author of The Lancet's major series on ultra-processed foods, argues that a good definition needs to be "replicable, easily monitored, and simple to make sure companies can follow it." He contends that the Nature Medicine proposal is too complex and "leads to all kinds of vagaries and decisions".

However, Krieger also noted that the Nova system's definition of cosmetic additives is broad enough to include new ingredients, and that researchers at the University of North Carolina have already developed computer algorithms to identify and update lists of cosmetic ingredients automatically. This suggests that updating existing definitions may be more practical than creating an entirely new framework.

As policymakers debate the best way forward, the core issue remains clear: without a definition that can adapt to industry innovation, regulations will always lag behind the food companies they're meant to control. Whether the answer is a negative definition or an updated version of Nova, the goal is the same: making it harder for manufacturers to reformulate their way around health-focused policies.