A 14-member expert panel convened by Healthy Eating Research (HER) has released a technical report recommending that certain ultra-processed foods (UPFs) be treated differently under US policy, arguing that blanket restrictions on the category risk penalizing foods with demonstrated health benefits, including many plant-based products.
The report, published in May 2026 and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was produced by academics and policy specialists from institutions including Harvard Law School, Tufts University, NYU, and the University of North Carolina.
Why plant-based products stand to benefit
The panel’s central finding is that UPF subcategories differ substantially in their health effects. Foods such as breads, breakfast cereals, and plant-based meat alternatives have been associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes in research, while processed meats and sugary drinks have been consistently linked to increased risks of heart disease and diabetes.
Noah Praamsma, a registered dietitian with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, put it plainly: “Many people have been told to avoid processed foods, but the science is clearly telling us that we need to be more nuanced. Processed meat like bacon, hot dogs, and deli meat should absolutely be avoided, but many plant-based foods that are considered ultra-processed, like breads, cereals, and meat alternatives are actually good for your health.”
The panel recommends that foods meeting certain nutritional criteria be excluded from restrictive UPF policies. To qualify, a food must contain adequate amounts from recommended food groups, stay below defined thresholds for added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat, and contain no non-sugar sweeteners.
Federal definition still pending
The FDA’s updated “Healthy” claim rule, which took effect in December 2024, already requires foods to contain meaningful amounts of recommended food groups and meet specific nutrient limits. The HER report builds on this framework, seeking to ensure that any UPF-specific policies do not inadvertently disadvantage nutritionally sound products.
The report’s recommendations are consistent with a position the American Heart Association adopted in August 2025, when it acknowledged that “not all UPFs are junk foods or have poor nutritional quality; some UPFs have better nutritional value and can be part of an overall healthy dietary pattern.”
“We need policies informed by science, not ideology”
For manufacturers of plant-based meat alternatives and other processed plant-based products, the report provides a policy-relevant argument against classification systems that treat all industrial food processing as equivalent. As policymakers move toward formal UPF definitions, how those frameworks are drawn will have direct commercial implications for the alternative protein sector.
“We need policies informed by science, not ideology, and that are robust enough to actually promote beneficial food and discourage unhealthy foods,” said Praamsma.
