In Meeting 7, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) members noted that a key barrier to stronger conclusions about dietary patterns containing ultra-processed foods (UPFs) was alignment on a definition. In addition, most of the science available at present is observational – lower on the evidentiary rating scale compared to randomized-controlled trials.

Some experts, even on the DGAC itself, disagree that the quantity of evidence is insufficient. What is the source of these disparate views and how can we move toward alignment to support stronger DGAC statements in the future?

In this session, speakers will detail sources of the disconnect, including detailing the components of the term "ultra" – a mix of processing and formulation - how processing differs from formulation (or "ingredients") and how the wide variety of processes and formulations come together in our vast marketplace to affect health in both positive and negative ways, some understood and some requiring further investigation. Rising above the controversy, evidence that experts agree is required in order to classify foods by processing and formulation, as relevant to health, will be outlined as a way to sift through the existing evidence as well as design research needed to arrive at clear guidance.

Planned with the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences and the Institute for Food Technologists