What makes food ultra -free? The FDA intends to weigh.

The federal government plans to develop a novel definition of ultra -free food, a wide -ranging group of snacks, meals and drinks that have become the cornerstone of the American diet.

Nutrition researchers generally define Ultra -inside food as industrially produced products that contain ingredients that cannot be found in your own kitchen, such as corn syrup with a high fructose content or hydrogenated oils. Products also often contain artificial flavors, sweeteners and emulsifiers that make them attractive to consumers and can give them a longer period of durability.

By developing its own definition, the government could examine chemicals and additives put into food, the number of ingredients in the product or its overall nutritional content. This description can then be used to shape lunch policy, regulate food available by means of federal services, such as a program supplementing the nutritional program, or to issue recommendations regarding the limitation of ultra -fed food intake in American dietary guidelines. Food and Drug Administration, which leads to cooperation with the US Department of Agriculture and other agencies, plans to look for a public commentary before determining the definition in the coming months.

Dr. Marta Makary, FDA Commissioner, said that he expected the definition to encourage companies to mark food as “non -estraporad” to encourage customers, just like food producers sell their products as free from additional sugars.

“We do not perceive ultra -sensitive foods as food that should be prohibited,” he said. “We see them as food that should be defined so that the markets can compete on the basis of health.”

The idea that consumers can get off the road to avoid these items reflects the growing fears of potential food damage, which includes many breakfast petals, instant, protein pasta, cocktails for replacing meals, aromatic yogurt, sizzling dogs and many others. Scientists increasingly combined ultra -polad foods with indigent health results, such as type 2 diabetes, heart problems, some types of cancer and gastrointestinal problems.

Kyle Diamantas, deputy commissioner of the FDA food department, said that there are some “obvious areas” that the agency will consider when creating its definitions, including synthetic dyes, emulsifiers and preservatives.

“We do not have in our home kitchens these novel creative ingredients that assist Twinkie stay on the shelf for six years or whatever it can be,” said Diamantas. He also suggested that to regulate meals served with meals served with meals served with meals served with meals.

The government will almost certainly face the redemption from some corners of the food industry, which consisted of preservatives and artificial ingredients to produce inexpensive, comfortable food on a huge scale.

Each definition that the government invented would be “warmly questioned” by the food industry, said Marion Nestle, Professor Emerita Diet, Food Research and Public Health at Up-to-date York University.

By defining ultra -hole food, the government will also be burdened with problems that divided nutrition experts and confused consumers: do meats and vegetable milk belong to the same category as carbonated drinks and bars? And are all ultra -free food products by nature unhealthy? Some like Various yogurt and whole grain and cereals contain valuable nutrients and were associated with positive health results.

Maya VadiveLoo, a nutrition professor at the University of Rhode Island, can “demonize” food that does not necessarily harm consumers.

The federal push occurs Last efforts In handful states limiting ultra -traded food sold and served in schools. In Arizona, legislators defined ultra -tracking foods only as people with certain food additives, such as artificial dyes. But additives can only be part of what makes some ultra-free foods unhealthy, said Brenda Davy, a professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech-a. If the federal definition follows the example of Arizona, she would probably skip a significant number of food ultrasound, she said, like cereals with sugar, which does not exploit certain food colors.

“If their focus is too narrow, it can be narrow in terms of health,” she said.

Despite this, the federal definition would be a “substantial step forward,” said Dr. Nestle. She said that she could pave the way for novel types of warning labels or the government to regulate whether food producers can continue the marketing of ultra -collected food for children.

“They are all available if there is a definition,” she said. She added: “It is very vital.”