Growing scrutiny of ultra-processed foods is emerging as a significant business risk for some of the biggest packaged food companies, which warn in financial filings that efforts to define UPFs, new state legislation, federal policy and pending litigation could dampen demand, increase costs and trigger new regulatory requirements.
Among the companies warning in filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission of negative fallout from the ongoing debate about ultra-processed foods are Conagra, Kraft Heinz and JM Smucker, which caution in recent financial filings about ongoing or potential litigation alleging UPFs cause negative health effects.
PepsiCo and The Campbell’s Co also warn investors that negative consumer perceptions about UPFs could hurt demand, while reformulation or relabeling efforts in response could raise costs.
Among the most explicit warnings is one in Campbell’s lates 10-K, filed with the SEC Sept. 24 and documented Aug. 2.
“Heightened scrutiny of ‘ultra-processed’ foods, including policy proposals outlined in reports by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission as well as state legislative activity, could result in new definitions, labeling requirements, marketing restrictions or reformulation mandates that increase our compliance costs or adversely affect consumer demand for certain of our products,” it says in the filing.
Fallout from MAHA’s position on UPFs
The MAHA Commission’s May 2025 “Make Our Children Healthy Again” assessment identifies ultra-processed foods as a potential driver of childhood chronic disease, arguing that their increased consumption is associated with “nutrient depletion, increased caloric intake and exposure to harmful additives.”
While the report was presented as based on scientific research, subsequent reviews found citation problems, including incorrect references, broken links and citations to studies that did not exist. HHS acknowledged the errors, but characterized them as formatting and citation problems and maintained the report’s conclusions.
The Commission subsequently called for changes that could directly affect food manufacturers, including dietary guidance to “eat real food” and avoid “highly processed foods,” as well as federal action to define ultra-processed foods.
Following the report, FDA and USDA issued a formal request for information on ultra-processed foods. Originally, the agency’s intention appeared to be promulgating a rulemaking to define ultra-processed food, but that effort appears to be downgraded to a white paper, which FDA submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review on Aug. 3.
While FDA’s effort to define UPFs slowly moves forward and, as a white paper that will lack the enforcement teeth of a regulation, some states are advancing laws that include more binding definitions.
Among them is California, which recently passed legislation that would create a voluntary ‘non-ultraprocessed certified’ state seal for food packaging, and broadly defines UPFs as any food or beverage containing certain functional additives, including emulsifiers, stabilizers, colors, flavor enhancers and non-nutritive sweeteners, as well as products exceeding specified thresholds for saturated fat, sodium and added sugars. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign the legislation into law or veto it.
Exposure extends beyond UPFs
The MAHA Commission also takes aim at several food additives that it says studies link to “increased risk of mental disorders, ADHD, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome and even carcinogenic effects.”
The MAHA Commission’s scrutiny of these ingredients is fueling reformulation efforts, including voluntary removal of certain synthetic food dyes by CPG manufacturers, including Campbell’s.
While the extent and impact of efforts by MAHA and some states to restrict UPF consumption and spur reformulation remains uncertain, Campbell’s and other CPG players warn they could impact their businesses and financial results.
“We are continuing to monitor changes in laws and regulations that affect the food industry and evaluate their impact on our business, financial condition and results of our operations,” Campbell’s writes in its in 10-K filing.
It adds the exposure goes beyond UPF and colors and could include, but is not limited to, products containing bio-engineered ingredients or ingredients previously determined to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).
Likewise, it adds that Campbell’s faces exposure to changing labeling and packaging laws at the state and federal level, “along with related changes in consumer expectations and behavior.”
Consumer concerns precede regulatory pressure
Regardless of future regulatory outcomes based on the MAHA Commission’s report or state legislation, the ongoing public conversation about UPFs already is changing how consumers think about food safety and the products they buy.
If negative consumer perceptions about UPFs, whether or not scientifically-grounded, are left unchecked by a CPG company, a brand’s reputation and sales could be harmed.
Among the companies warning of this risk is PepsiCo, which tells investors in its fiscal year 2025 10-K filed in February that “our reputation or brand image has in the past been, and could in the future be, adversely impacted by a variety of factors,” including, “concerns or perceptions regarding whether certain of our products are ‘ultra-processed,’ contain certain ingredients or substances or otherwise contribute to obesity and other health conditions or an increase in public health costs.”
PepsiCo also warns that state efforts to limit marketing and sale of “so-called ‘ultra-processed’ foods’” could reduce consumption and sales – adversely impacting PepsiCo’s business and financial performance.
For example, it cites a Texas law effective Jan. 1, 2027, that will require warning labels on products containing certain ingredients, including artificial colors.
Other “jurisdictions have imposed or are considering imposing color-coded labeling requirements where colors such as red, yellow and green are used to indicate various levels of a particular ingredient, such as sugar, sodium or saturated fat, in products, and other jurisdictions, including the United States, have imposed or are considering imposing restrictions on so-called “ultra-processed” foods,” it adds in the financial filing.
It adds, “The imposition or proposed imposition of additional limitations on the marketing or sale of our products has in the past reduced and could continue to reduce overall consumption of our products, lead to negative publicity or leave consumers with the perception that our products do not meet their health and wellness needs.”
UPF litigation adds another layer of risk
The risks posed by negative consumer perceptions of UPFs go beyond just reputational to include litigation that could lead to fines, lawsuits, taxes, additional regulation and operational changes, according to other CPG players.
For example, Conagra warns in its Fiscal Year 2026 10-K filed in July that it faces litigation alleging some of its products should be considered ‘ultra-processed’ and consumption of them allegedly causes “negative health impacts.”
While Conagra says it cannot predict the outcome of these or other legal proceedings, it does not expect them to have a material adverse effect on its financial conditions, results of operations or business.
Kraft Heinz, on the other hand, cautions similar allegations against it could change how it does business.
In its Fiscal Year 2025 10-K filed in February, Kraft Heinz discloses it faces “pending litigation alleging that certain of our products are ‘ultra-processed’ and consuming them causes adverse health impacts.”
It notes that it “strongly disagrees” with the allegations, but the developments “may cause us to change the way we operate.”
JM Smucker also cautions that litigation by consumers alleging harm from a product that is ultra-processed or contains certain ingredients could pose a risk.
It adds in its Fiscal Year 2026 10-K filed in June that “adverse publicity from such allegations could materially adversely affect us, regardless of whether such allegations are true or whether we are ultimately held liable.”
Takeaways
Taken together, the filings suggest the packaged food industry’s exposure to the UPF debate is broader than any single regulatory proposal.
For Campbell’s, the potential impact could range from higher compliance and reformulation costs to weaker demand for products affected by new definitions or labeling requirements. For companies such as Conagra, Kraft Heinz and JM Smucker, meanwhile, the risk is already showing up in litigation disclosures, while PepsiCo’s filing highlights the potential for consumer perceptions alone to affect sales.
How those risks ultimately translate into changes on grocery shelves, and whether the federal government establishes a definition of UPFs with regulatory consequences, remains to be seen. But the disclosures make clear that the debate has moved beyond a public-health discussion and into the risk-management plans of some of the industry’s largest companies.
