Ultraprocessed Food: Regulatory Moves and Resource Allocation Create Conflict

As the industry navigates emerging scientific, regulatory and industry-centric approaches to the Ultraprocessed Food debate, Nosh is diving into how each sector is addressing the challenge. Stay tuned for additional reporting.

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement has propelled the term ultraprocessed food (UPF) into the lexicon of everyday Americans over the past seven months as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, has positioned increased food supply oversight as a key issue of the otherwise deregulatory administration he works under.

But, without a clear definition, MAHA-aligned politicians have tossed around their own ideas on what is, or isn’t, UPF and what the harms could be; many of those claims do not currently have scientific evidence to support them. This discourse has put consumers on high alert without a clear answer on why and what could be done to combat their newfound concerns.

“There are folks like me who say, ‘Okay, well, bourbon and ice cream are considered ultraprocessed. I know we’re at war with ultraprocessed food, but let’s not overreact,’” said Brian Ronholm, director of Food Policy at Consumer Reports during a panel at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA)’s National Food Policy conference last week.

“There’s still a lot of that being sorted out from a consumer perspective, and so it makes it really difficult to determine policy when people are all over the place, both on the academia side, the state legislators and consumers.”

Earlier this week we broke down the industry’s approach to reigning in UPFs via a standard and certification program. Today, the government is in focus, including a look at state legislation and federal policy proposals, how these changes could impact the food supply and the likelihood that the MAHA message could be executed over the next four years.

Moves To Mandate UPFs

Despite the lack of a federally-recognized definition for UPFs, Kennedy has insisted he will work to ban government subsidies of UPFs by restricting products that can be purchased via the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program. The SNAP program is funded by the Farm Bill, which itself is currently hanging in the balance after numerous extensions while Congress fights over future appropriations for food assistance program spending.

Any changes to the SNAP program, like restricting the eligibility of UPFs, would likely be implemented within the new Farm Bill. That means if Kennedy is going to restrict UPFs through this pathway, a federal definition for UPF would also need to be established well before that bill is passed. Considering it took the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nearly 10 years to finalize its definition of the term “healthy,” the timeline for formalized UPF terminology likely won’t come quickly.

“What makes something hyper-palatable could be related to the salt, sugar, fat content, but it can also be related to the additives [in] the food,” said Melanie Benesh, VP of government affairs at Environmental Working Group, during a panel at the CFA conference. “I think a definition that only looks at a handful of ingredients of concern is likely inadequate, as some states have done, but we need something that helps consumers distinguish between a food that is delicious and a food that is so delicious and so irresistible that we can’t stop eating it.”

Kennedy also stated his goal to remove UPFs from school lunch programs, taking aim at broad product types including “junk food, candy and sugary drinks” that are “poisoning” American children, per comments made during his Senate confirmation hearing; he has not yet laid out any details how he would accomplish restricting those items.

Reducing the presence of UPFs in school lunches has begun to gain traction at the state level however. Earlier this week, California introduced a bill that would phase some UPFs out of school lunch programs by 2032.

If more states follow this approach, the potential for confusion around the definition of UPF will grow. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has distinguished these products as being characterized by “industrial formulations of chemically modified substances extracted from foods.” The definition also indicates that UPFs feature “additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability, with minimal to no inclusion of whole foods.”

“Processed food can be part of a healthy diet, but Americans, especially our kids, are eating too many ultra-processed foods, leading to higher rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” said Scott Faber, SVP of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “By identifying and phasing out the most harmful UPF from California’s school food, A.B. 1264 will send the right signal to the companies selling food to our schools.”

Similarly, the Lone Star state unanimously passed the Make Texas Healthy Again bill (S.B. 25) last week, which aims to require physical activity and nutrition curriculum in public schools. The bill also aims to usher in the use of food labels that inform consumers of ingredients being used that are banned in other countries, establish the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee which will create state-level nutrition guidelines and examine the link between additives and chronic disease.

During the CFA conference last week, numerous panelists and attendees during Q&A sessions emphasized that the Dietary Guidelines of America should also take action against UPFs. Currently, the DGA does not have a public recommendation around UPF consumption, but the guidelines are also currently under review and Kennedy said last week that the MAHA Commission will conduct its own assessment to determine whether those recommendations align with public interests.

“Without a workable regulatory definition, it’s hard for regulators to give consumers the tools to help them navigate different kinds of foods and build a healthy diet, which, to be clear, can include ultraprocessed foods,” said Benesh during the panel. “I think we all recognize that UPFs are a part of the American diet [and] they’re going to continue to eat them.”

Food Supply Implications

If Kennedy is able to push through some regulatory action on UPFs, the implication on the food industry could be drastic.

As every CPG business knows, product and packaging tweaks can be costly. If legislation is passed that requires a broad swath of food makers to make changes to formulations and packaging, the cost of food at checkout could be expected to increase across all categories and channels.

“This does make folks nervous,” said Beth Johnson, founder and principal of policy consultancy Food Directions, during a CFA panel. “If you’ve got to reformulate, the costs have to go somewhere. We’re trying to decrease the cost of food [right now] so it’s just a lot.”

While the price of food-at-home has decelerated from a peak in August 2022, per Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, prices began to trend upward (+1.3%) again by September 2024. Food-at-home prices rose 1.9% in February 2025 compared to the same period last year per CPI data.

The impact of tariffs is also expected to contribute to rising food costs. Over the past quarter, major snack food producers including General Mills, Campbell’s and Mondelez have lowered revenue guidance as they brace for a tougher economic climate and lower consumer spending.

MAHA’s Mission v. Budgets and Resources

Kennedy has secured bipartisan support for many of the food-related objectives proposed under the MAHA ideology. But even with support coming from both sides of the aisle, Kennedy will likely face challenges in securing and allocating the resources needed to enforce any regulatory action around UPF consumption.

The FDA, which oversees nearly 80% of the food supply as well as the pharmaceuticals and pet industries, had an annual budget of $7.2 billion during FY 2024. That is compared to the $213.2 billion budget of the USDA, which oversees the remaining portion of the food supply as well as agricultural, natural resources, rural development and nutrition.

This lack of resources was also well documented in the 2022 Regan Udall Foundation report, which reviewed the efficacy and ability of the FDA to regulate the U.S. food supply in the wake of the infant formula crisis. That report found that not only was the agency greatly understaffed and underresourced, but also claimed its organizational structure was not set up to effectively monitor food safety issues.

As the Trump Administration took office and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) plans took effect, hundreds of FDA staffers were laid off. With less staff dedicated to key functions like food safety, it is unlikely the agency would be able to effectively take oversight action on any policy implemented that does not present an immediate concern related to human health.

However, not everyone sees it that way. Johnson said during a panel at the CFA conference that, prior to Trump taking office, the consultancy warned its clients that the FDA could be an outlier within the broadly deregulatory administration. Considering the actions of the Trump Administration thus far, it wouldn’t be surprising to see some form of an FDA overhaul that prioritizes the administration’s policies above all else.

“We’re in an era where science isn’t always coming first, and I recognize that that’s just the way things are, but I think great care needs to be taken to not enhance consumer confusion and lead them to choices that aren’t ultimately helpful,” said Miriam Guggenheim, partner at Covington & Burling LLP, during a panel at the CFA conference.

“My bottom line is to just be sure that in making that definition, that we are letting the science lead, and then we’re devoting the resources that are needed in order to do that.”