Last week, we looked at the MAHA report and what it covered, and just as importantly, what it left out. While the document laid out key priorities for the pork industry, it did not take on the looming debate over federal dietary guidelines. That discussion is coming soon, and with it a central question: how regulators will define “ultra-processed” foods. The answer could have big consequences for pork products, raising the risk that staples like bacon and sausage get lumped in with candy and pop.
As the focus shifts from the MAHA recommendations to the upcoming dietary guidelines, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services are working with members of several advisory committees to provide more clarity. They are exploring how to define what counts as “ultra-processed,” a step that will influence how those recommendations are written and understood. Dr. Ashley Johnson with the National Pork Producers Council says that makes this stage especially important, as the terminology chosen could carry lasting consequences for how pork and other foods are perceived.
Beyond the debate over definitions, Johnson says it is important to remember why certain processing practices exist in the first place. Many foods are packaged and prepared in ways that ensure they can be stored safely, transported efficiently, and remain affordable for consumers.
These concerns are not limited to pork. Farmers and food groups across the board are watching to see how ultra-processed will be defined, knowing that the outcome could shape how a wide range of products are viewed by policymakers and consumers. For the pork industry, the stakes remain high as it works to ensure that nutrient-rich meats are not confused with foods that offer little more than empty calories.
