New HHS Food Policy Reforms Target GRAS Ingredients and Ultra-Processed Definitions

Reading the latest announcement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I felt the ground shift beneath a conversation I have been tracking for years — one that sits at the intersection of every kitchen counter and every chronic-disease statistic. According to HHS, Secretary Kennedy has unveiled a two-part proposal: a rule that would make Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notifications mandatory for food manufacturers, paired with what the agency describes as the federal government's first proposed definition of ultra-processed foods. For anyone who has stood in a grocery aisle wondering, "How much of this should I actually avoid?", this is the moment a definition begins to crystallize.

Two moves in one announcement

The first piece, according to HHS, would require companies to formally notify the agency when they self-determine that an ingredient is Generally Recognized as Safe. Until now, GRAS status could be self-assessed without notifying regulators — a quiet back door that has shaped the American food supply for decades. The second piece, reported by NOTUS as new reporting requirements for ultra-processed foods, is the submission of a formal federal definition of that category itself. HHS frames both as opening moves in advancing President Trump's "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.

Why context still has the last word

Here is where I want to slow down and walk with you through the evidence, because a single category can either illuminate a kitchen or obscure one. A parallel analysis published the same day by New Food magazine makes the case that context, not processing alone, drives health outcomes. Their review notes that ultra-processed foods already account for more than half of dietary energy intake in countries like the US and UK, and that higher overall UPF consumption is linked with obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But — and this is the thread I keep pulling on — the evidence does not suggest that all foods classified as ultra-processed are equally harmful, nor that processing alone explains the associations. Wholegrain breads, fortified foods and plant-based proteins can sit in the same NOVA category as sugary confectionery and energy drinks, even though their nutritional roles are profoundly different. A plant-based burger replacing processed meat carries very different consequences from a sugary drink replacing water.

Reading the policy from your kitchen counter

I find it grounding, when policy lands in the headlines, to translate it into something we can hold. Until the federal definition is finalized, treat any "ultra-processed" claim as a starting question, not a verdict. Ask whether the product replaces something less nutritious in your day, whether it offers fibre, vitamins or minerals worth keeping, and whether it fits a dietary pattern built around whole and minimally processed plants — vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts and seeds. Watch for the public comment period on the GRAS rule when it opens; mandatory notification is the kind of structural change that will reshape ingredient lists long before it reshapes a dinner plate.