Ultra-processed food (UPF) research has shifted attention beyond nutrient composition toward the ways industrial processing, including the introduction of novel chemical compositions and altered physical structures, may influence food function and health outcomes (1). The integrity of the food matrix is increasingly relevant to this discussion, as matrix degradation and artificialisation may influence digestion, nutrient release, satiety and behavioural responses to eating (2). Food processing aids are used during food manufacturing for a variety of technological purposes and may enable food matrix changes that persist even after the aid has been removed or deactivated. As processing aids are regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), they provide an important case through which to examine how food matrix transformation is considered within a food regulation setting (3). This study aimed to examine how FSANZ interprets and applies its objective to protect public health and safety when assessing processing-aid applications, and the extent to which food matrix transformation and related UPF concerns are represented in the food standard risk assessment process. A retrospective document analysis was conducted using publicly available FSANZ processing-aid application and assessment documents. A descriptive profile was developed for all eligible applications, and preliminary content analysis was conducted on fully coded applications available at the time of abstract submission. From 1 March 1999 to data extraction on 16 July 2026, 128 processing-aid applications were submitted to FSANZ for assessment. Of these, 109 were approved and gazetted into Schedule 18, nine were still under assessment, five were withdrawn, and five were excluded as non-processing-aid or resubmitted applications. No rejected processing-aid applications were identified in the database. Of applications classified by processing-aid type (n = 123), 98 (79.7%) were enzyme-related, indicating clear dominance over other processing-aid categories such as chemical substances/compounds (n = 10, 8.1%), polymers/resins (n = 5, 4.1%) and several smaller categories. Application activity was concentrated in the later study period, with 85 of 123 applications (69.1%) submitted between 2015 and 2026. Within the fully coded applications, FSANZ consistently concluded that assessed processing aids posed no public health and safety concerns. Preliminary coding suggests this conclusion pattern remained largely unchanged where applications involved food-level transformation or where final food uses were broad or potentially UPF-relevant. Public health and safety was primarily assessed through substance safety, technological justification and residue/dietary exposure, reflecting a toxicological science approach; explicit nutrition science considerations, such as food-matrix transformation or downstream dietary implications, appeared limited. These findings suggest that processing-aid regulation provides strong visibility over substance-level safety, but limited visibility over food matrix-level transformation and product use, with implications for public-health nutrition assessment and consumer transparency when the use of processing aids in the manufacturing process is not declared on food product labels.