News

New UPF standard hoped to offer consumers ‘coherence and clarity’

Ingredients companies are being urged to enter “a new era of partnership and innovation” following the launch of the industry’s first non-UPF verification scheme.

“[Our scheme] is designed to help suppliers and brands work together to develop products that meet rising consumer expectations for transparency and integrity,” Charlene Guzman, strategic communications and public relations lead at the Non-GMO Project, a US nonprofit organisation for food transparency and labelling, told Ingredients Network.

“By clearly defining processing through a science-based lens, we’re unlocking new pathways for creativity, collaboration, and leadership in building the future of real food.”

The Non-GMO Project is behind the Non-GMO Verification: the “butterfly seal”, introduced in 2008, is now found on 60,000 products across 3,000 brands in the US to help consumers identify products that do not contain genetically modified ingredients. It is recognised by more than half of North American consumers.

In July, the organisation announced its intention to create a similar standard for ultra-processed foods

(UPFs), with 16 major food brands joining its pilot scheme to develop the Non-UPF Verified Standard.

The pilot emerged from the project’s Food Integrity Collective, an initiative designed to “co-create alternatives to the industrial food system”.

Verification scheme hoped to offer consumers transparency on UPFs

UPFs now account for more than half the calories consumed in Western countries, with their regulation, definition, and labelling the subject of heated debate.

"In the past 20 years, we have established one of the most trusted third-party verification systems by focusing on a crucial question: how is our food produced?” explained Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project.

“Our expertise in complex food systems, certification standards, and education puts us in a unique position to address the challenge of ultra-processed foods.”

Those at the project liken GMOs to UPFs, saying that both are “deeply disconnected from natural food sources”. They have designed the new verification scheme to offer “the same level” of transparency on ultra-processed ingredients as there is for genetically modified ones.

More than 200 brands have already expressed an interest in the standard. This engagement – from emerging innovators to some of the world’s largest and most established companies – has been “remarkable”, said Guzman.

“Several global players have been part of the conversation, and that engagement is essential to building a credible, practical standard,” she added.

Over the past year, 16 brands have helped the team “test and refine” the new standard. Those involved include Bear, Yes Bar, Caulipower, Levelle Nutrition, One Mighty Mill, Heray Spice, Olyra, and Spindrift.

That some of these are plant-based brands has certainly attracted interest – the category is one of those under scrutiny for the level of processing involved in making the products to best mimic meat, for example.

This collaboration with the food industry ensures the programme “is both rigorous and achievable”, according to Guzman.

“We’re truly co-creating this standard together by testing ideas, refining approaches and ensuring it balances meaningfulness with achievability,” she told Ingredients Network.

Product evaluation: A three-step process to evaluating UPFs

The Non-UPF Verified Standard starts with what’s on the ingredient label by eliminating certain additives and compounds, but it doesn’t stop there, Guzman said.

“The standard goes beyond ingredients to examine how foods are made because we recognise that processing itself can fundamentally change how a product behaves in the body,” she explained.

Products are evaluated across three dimensions.

1. Processing limits assess how much each ingredient has been physically, chemically, or thermally altered from its original state.
2. Ingredient integrity evaluates the nature and source of inputs, distinguishing between whole-food ingredients and refined, isolated, or synthetic substances.
3. Whole product formulation considers how ingredients interact to maintain or mimic real-food structure, texture, and sensory experience.

The standard is being billed as the first comprehensive, nationwide, front-of-pack label that makes it easy for shoppers to quickly discern whether or not a product is ultra-processed. Seven in 10 US shoppers say they are trying to avoid UPFs, according to research published in September.

The goal, Guzman explained, is not to duplicate existing efforts, but to provide a rigorous, science-based framework that “unites policymakers, brands, and consumers around a clear and consistent definition of ultra-processing”.

Indeed, some US states have started to introduce such laws. In October, California passed a bill defining UPFs and will remove “products of concern” from schools.

“The law does not impose a blanket ban on ultra-processed foods,” Brian Sylvester, a partner at the international law firm Morrison Foerster, told Fi Global Insights.

Instead, the new bill sets out phased restrictions within the state’s primary and secondary schools. Retailers must begin phasing out certain items in 2029, and full prohibitions take effect by 2035.

UPFs: A global movement to improve transparency

Globally, policymakers have considered various mechanisms to address the prevalence of UPFs and their associated health concerns, including marketing restrictions, nutritional labels, taxes, and bans near schools.

California’s move is a significant indication that jurisdictions are turning to legal instruments to tackle the prominence of UPFs.

Guzman said these early moves were “encouraging” but argued that the new standard was “significantly more rigorous”.

She explained that, while state laws often focus on banning certain ingredients, the Non-UPF Verified Standard examines “the entire process” of how food and beverages are made.

She added: “Just as the Non-GMO Project’s work has both met and exceeded state and federal legislation on GMOs, this programme is designed to do the same. The Non-UPF Verified Standard will bring coherence and clarity to a topic that can otherwise feel fragmented.”