October 2025

In this conversation with IAFNS Executive Director Wendelyn Jones, we celebrate science! With a summary of recent accomplishments and a deeper discussion on food classification and food processing, the interview offers an overview on the impactful work supported by IAFNS. 

To learn how IAFNS advances science and public health, please find responses below from Wendelyn.

With the interest in the food and beverage ecosystem continuing at an elevated level across all stakeholder groups – from policy makers to consumers – how is IAFNS making a difference?

WJ: There's so much to be excited about regarding science and the importance of evidence in the discussions around food and nutrition. Never  has there been as much intense interest in the food and beverage ecosystem as there is today. This ranges from discussions at the highest political levels to backyard neighborhood barbecues. It seems everyone is asking about food, wants to know what's in their food, and wants to provide their families with safe, affordable and nutritious foods.

IAFNS is continuing to deliver on our mandate of advancing science for public benefit. More importantly we are delivering science that matters. To date in 2025 we already have 11 peer reviewed publications — well on our way to our goal of 15 peer reviewed publications for the year. As an organization catalyzing science, such publications are the first step to supporting science and evidence-based decision making by all.  We are pleased to note that we also have over 1,000 earned media hits related to our work in 2025 so far and 14 Op-Eds. We're also thrilled to have a growing membership base.

In addition to our peer reviewed publications, IAFNS has hosted 27 public webinars and events, and 15 invitation-only events — with more in the planning stages. And, we are pleased to have had IAFNS science highlighted at scientific conferences here and abroad including NUTRITION 2025, FNCE, IFT, ICN-IUNS, and IAFP.

What are you especially proud of?

WJ: I am so proud of the work we are doing at IAFNS. I could easily spend hours covering the activities across our 14 different Scientific Committees and Working Groups. But I would like to expand upon our efforts in the area of food classification. The IAFNS Working Group on food classification, whose full name is — the Working Group on Science-Based Principles for Food Classification Based on Processing and Formulation to Support Public Health — kicked off officially one year ago.  This tri-partite group is working to advance consensus across food and nutrition stakeholders on what types and how much evidence should be required for classifying foods.

I am pleased to report that the Working Group has supported the development of 9 Principles for food classification. These principles were developed by an independent Writing Team composed of scientists from the public sector —  Government, Academia, and other non-profits.  These Principles were shared in April 2025 at a Public Workshop. A paper detailing the Principles is currently under peer review. Additionally, since kicking off last year, the Working Group has delivered multiple webinars and briefings. This includes the presentation last week at FNCE in Nashville.

What is processed food?

WJ: Many are asking the question: what is a processed food? What is a highly processed food?  What is an ultra-processed food (UPF)? Controversy has emerged around classifying foods based on variable criteria that incorporate some degree of food processing and other characteristics related to food formulation.

Inconsistent classification can muddy research findings that are intended to support policy and dietary guidance. Despite this confusion, some governments have recommended limiting certain foods based on these classification schemes. One unfortunate outcome would be consumers deselecting foods that are supported by dietary guidelines such as whole grains and dairy.  Stated another way, many foods classified as ‘UPF’ are nutrient-dense, affordable, and compatible with a healthy diet. Thus, the insertion of scientific rigor is critical to aligning evidence-based policies with public health goals.

How is this project related to public health?

WJ: Obesity rates in the US and around the world continue to rise. The search for causal mechanisms has increased the focus on food and the food supply. Is there an aspect related to processing? Or is it related to specific ingredients in the food formulation?

As researchers look to form hypotheses to test, evaluate existing data, and design new studies to explore the impact of a food or food ingredient, there is an interest in formally classifying or grouping foods to support the research. However, classifying foods according to processing or formulation requires the same rigor as all other aspects of experimental design. To advance science and address this need, the Working Group developed 9 Principles to guide activities around food classification.

Tell me more about these 9 Principles for food classification?

WJ: These 9 Principles provide science-based criteria that can support food policy decisions, promote effective regulation, and advance our shared goal of supporting public health.

The principles have been submitted to a peer reviewed journal and the manuscript is currently undergoing evaluation. However, IAFNS has posted a preprint version. And, the paper has been downloaded more than 400 times. The principles were written by academics and government researchers to support food classification research and advance science.

In summary, these 9 core principles provide a science-based foundation for consistent, evidence-based decisions for food classification efforts.

Can you summarize the 9 Principles?

WJ: These 9 Principles emphasize that food classification schemes should be transparent, reproducible, biologically plausible, and evolve with advancing science. Importantly, they distinguish processing from formulation, caution against embedding cultural assumptions, and stress that food classification should be based on properties with demonstrated links to health outcomes rather than indirect proxies or imprecise terminology.

How do the 9 Principles address the definition of ‘ultra-processed foods’?

WJ: One of the reasons for the confusion over food classification and what is processed, ultra-processed, or highly-processed foods is the limited documentation around these definitions. There needs to be clear definitions, documentation and transparency in science-based efforts to classify foods. Different users applying the same food classification scheme should arrive at similar results if they follow the same documentation. This is a foundational aspect of experimental science that needs to be applied to nutrition research. Without clear definitions and documentation to allow for reproducibility, rigor and transparency, it is difficult to draw solid conclusions or make official recommendations when classifying foods. It makes sense then that the first principle, which underlies all the other eight principles, focuses on consistency.

The principles are written with the accuracy and precision one expects of top-tier researchers. However, could you walk us through a couple of principles so we can understand how they can be applied?

WJ: With the first principle centered on consistency, the second principle calls for classification efforts based on clear criteria related to health. This can be thought of as ‘clarity of rationale.’

There are characteristics of food used in some classification schemes that are only thought to be related to health without solid proof or at least evidence for plausibility. An example here is ‘industrially produced.’ Bread can be prepared at home. It can also be prepared in a commercial bakery. And it can be prepared the exact same way with the exact same ingredients in both. Where the food was prepared as the basis for classifying foods is not related to health. The location of preparation with the same ingredients has no link to health.

I'll jump to Principle 4 which addresses distinguishing what is helpful from harmful. Stated simply, this means that all aspects — both negative and positive — of various food processing steps on the final product should be considered.

Food processing has long played a critical role in ensuring the safety, nutrition, affordability, and accessibility of food. Some food classification schemes consider processing as one element, but one single type of processing can be used to create very different foods with varying nutrient profiles. For example, using extrusion can create a variety of foods ranging from fiber-rich cereals to puffed snacks. And cold-pressed juicing can preserve nutrients longer when refrigerated than more traditional methods of juicing.

Processing alone is neither helpful nor harmful. Specific processing steps such as extrusion are not inherently helpful or harmful. A science-based approach considers the impact of each processing step on the final food product.

This is a complicated area. What about the link between nutrient density and ‘UPFs’?

WJ: Nutrient density is critical. Nutrient dense foods in all forms are an important part of a healthy diet and can help to promote overall health and well-being.

But nutrient density and processing levels are not related. Some foods associated with the “UPF” category in classification schemes include products with the highest nutrient density scores in every type of category. Cereals, snacks, fresh dairy, prepared and frozen meals, and fruits and vegetables can be classified as having the highest level of processing. Even when foods meet an additive-based criteria to be classified as ‘UPF,’ they can still be nutrient dense. Another good example is ultra-filtered milk. This product can be higher in protein, lower in sugar, and lactose-free. These qualities meet several dietary needs that ‘regular’ milk does not. At the same time, some UPFs have low nutrient value. Energy density is similar in that some UPFs are high in energy density, but minimally processed foods – such as nut butters – can also be high in energy density. This underscores the difficulty of applying a uniform definition of UPFs across the food supply.

Do you have a favorite principle?

WJ: Principle 5 is perhaps my personal favorite principle because it incorporates amount, form, and type. Or stated another way, context matters.  As developed by the Writing Team experts Principle 5 states that the impact of formulation on the final composition and structure of the food should be considered. In other words, both the quantity and the specific nature of ingredients in a food influences what should be considered.

One example here that illustrates this principle is titanium dioxide. The larger size of titanium dioxide particles, which are those used in food, have a different safety profile than the smaller size of particles used in non-food applications. This has led to inconsistent standards and even mistrust.

But perhaps a better example is fiber. In some classification schemes, foods with added fiber fall into the highest level of processing because of the added fiber. And yet most added fibers provide physiological benefits to health as defined by FDA. Foods containing these fibers range from bars to breakfast cereals to pasta. Noting that fiber intake is one of the most consistent nutrient gaps across the US population, adding fiber is a good thing. So, one of the key takeaways here is that some ingredients in processed foods are added because they address specific public health concerns.

It is important to remember that while specific ingredients may shape consumer perceptions, they do not necessarily align with the scientific consensus on food healthfulness. Policies and regulations must consider ingredient function and the full body of scientific literature on ingredient safety.

Based on the 9 Principles, what would you recommend to someone that is unsure about the class of foods considered highly- or ultra-processed?

WJ: The purpose of the 9 Principles is to ensure that the evidence base for recommendations is sound. As noted in the past several iterations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, based on their rigorous systematic evidence review process, added sugars, saturated fat and sodium should be limited in the diet and the intake of certain nutrients, including fiber, should increase. The question is, do we need to build on this, what evidence do we have, and what evidence do we need? The 9 Principles provide a framework for addressing these questions.

What is next for the IAFNS’ Working Group on Food Classification?

WJ: IAFNS looks forward to continuing steps to mobilize the 9 Principles. This includes the official publication of the 9 Principles in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations to diverse audiences (such as at AHPA next month).

IAFNS is all about collaboration and we welcome the opportunity to work across sectors (and the globe) to make research and policy stronger. Working with our members and the broader community, we look forward to supporting additional outreach and additional publications.

IAFNS’s 9 Principles inform policy decisions that safeguard public health by strengthening the evidence base.  The 9 Principles provide a way to think about things differently to benefit public health. Food is in the news. And now is the time for the focus to be on advancing science.

  • Join us in catalyzing science that matters.
  • Join us in bringing positive change to our food and beverage ecosystem.
  • Join us in shaping a world where credible science drives and informs decision making – from policy makers to consumers.

Interested in learning more? Email us at science@iafns.org.