Mandatory federal labeling of ultra-processed foods, as advocated for by HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, could impact nearly three-quarters of packaged foods in the US and cost at least $14.2 billion, according to new analysis – an expense that an industry trade group warns may be understated and may not improve public health.
Researchers at the University of Chicago in association with the university’s Initiative on Enabling Choice and Competition in Health Care Markets acknowledge in the analysis published Oct 17 that the estimated cost of a hypothetical mandatory UPF labeling policy is on the “lower bounds.”
They explain the $14.2 billion does not include the effects on suppliers, which could include an additional $1 billion a year in lost revenue for domestic agriculture and $7.7 to $8.7 billion annually in increased food import costs.
Likewise, the analysis does not factor in litigation costs, adds a spokeswoman with the Consumer Brands Association.
For example, grocers and manufacturers could face false advertising or deceptive marketing claims allegations if products designated as “healthy,” “natural,” or “nutritious” also meet the formal federal definition for a UPF. Likewise, public nuisance claims or cost-recover suits similar to those brought against the tobacco or opioid industries could be brought against distributors or retailers that prominently feature or market products later classified as UPFs. Finally, plaintiffs may allege grocers or manufacturers failed to adequately warn consumers about risks associated with products that meet a federal standard for UPFs.
These are potential legal scenarios and not established consequences of the proposed definition. The likelihood of their success also remains uncertain based on early legal attempts that have hit hurdles in the courts already.
Wider implications of a federal UPF definition
These modeled costs and hypothetical risks come as FDA awaits review of a proposed federal definition of ultra-processed foods that it submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review on Aug. 3.
The agency originally suggested the definition would go through formal rulemaking with a comment period, it opted instead to submit the definition as a white paper. The pivot limits the legal force of the definition, but it would still have substantial sway over voluntary reformulation, future federal food policy, labeling and litigation.
For example, Kennedy has indicated his desire to use the definition to create a UPF-related label claim, symbol or potential “stoplight” labeling model designed to help consumers identify “healthier” food and discourage the purchase of UPFs.
The potential economic implications are significant, but the study’s estimate should be distinguished from FDA’s assessment of the proposed definition itself. FDA characterized its white paper as not “economically significant,” indicating an expected economic impact below OMB’s $100m threshold.
The new analysis, by contrast, estimates that a hypothetical mandatory labeling policy using a broad UPF definition could generate $14.2bn in annual costs –142 times that threshold. The figures are not directly comparable, however, because FDA’s assessment concerns the proposed definition, while the researchers model the costs of a potential labeling policy built around it.
The researchers break down the estimated $14.2 billion in annual costs into three main categories:
- $9.5 billion annual to reformulate products so they would not trigger a mandatory UPF label,
- $4.5 billion annually for substitute ingredients used in the reformulated products, and
- $200 million annually for federal administrative, relabeling and classification costs.
How the researchers defined UPF and determined its impact
Because FDA’s proposed definition for UPF has not been published publicly, the researchers used the definition published in the May 2026 by Healthy Eating Research.
Under that definition, a product qualifies as ultra-processed if its ingredient list contains at least one designated marker ingredient. Markers include “cosmetic additives” across 13 functional classes, including flavors, flavor enhancers, colors, non-sugar sweeteners, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, thickeners and bulking, gelling, glazing, anti-foaming, foaming and carbonating agents. They also include non-culinary ingredients, such as industrial carbohydrates, modified fats and industrial proteins.
The researchers used this definition to assess whether nearly 450,000 products in the USDA Global Branded Food Products Database qualified as UPFs. It found 72.3% of the products met the definition of ultra-processed. Some categories, like confectionery, baked sweets, soda, pasta dinners and frozen appetizers, were nearly all ultra-processed. Others, like rice, frozen and canned vegetables were the least likely to be UPFs.
The breadth of the classification means it could encompass products that many consumers, retailers and program administrators would not expect to see labeled as ultra-processed, including products currently promoted as healthy.
As a result, the researchers conclude UPFs make up 51% of money spent on food consumed at home.
The researchers also estimate that manufacturers and retailers would be unable to absorb all the costs of mandatory labeling and reformulation, passing some of the burden on to consumers through higher prices or lower product quality.
“Of the $14.2 billion, $8.1 billion reaches consumers through higher prices, or $60 per household, and the consumer loss rises to $9.8 billion if firms let product quality fall rather than pay for substitute ingredients,” the researchers estimate.
CBA challenges the breadth and potential application of the definition
The Consumer Brands Association argues that the potential broad reach of FDA’s definition for ultra process foods could be its biggest shortcoming.
“Any so-called definition that captures nearly 80% of the nation’s food supply while picking winners and losers is fundamentally flawed, not based on sound science and politically motivated. Further, substituting rhetoric for real policy is not a serious attempt at addressing public health concerns and will, instead, create widespread consumer confusion and increase grocery costs,” Rhonda Bentz, CBA executive vice president of public affairs, said in a statement in August following the filing of the white paper with OMB.
She added the definition and any related labeling scheme could have “disastrous consequences” on grocery prices, and by extension President Trump’s “affordability agenda.”
She noted that the president “has taken numerous critical steps to keep prices low,” and she said she is “confident that this definition won’t move forward once the President is made aware of it” and its potential impact on prices.
An alternative supported by industry
Rather than focusing on a processing-based labeling scheme, CBA argues, “regulators should focus on providing consumers with clear, science-based nutrition facts rather than broad classifications that group nutritionally different foods together.”
For example, CBA supports programs like the industry-supported Facts Up Front voluntary labeling initiative in which companies can place key nutrition facts on packages, and the use of SmartLabel, which allows consumers to access more detailed ingredient and product information online.
“Rather than introducing sweeping warnings that could confuse consumers, federal policymakers should build on these tools and advance actionable nutrition initiatives focused on nutrient content, overall dietary patterns and consumer education,” a spokeswoman said.
Ultimately, “before moving forward, it is worth looking at the evidence and weighing the risks,” the spokeswoman added.
She explained: “America’s packaged foods are safe, affordable, and manufacturers provide the information consumers need to make informed choices. This definition is not a serious attempt at addressing public health concerns and will, instead, create widespread consumer confusion and increase grocery costs, as supported by this new study.”
