TL;DR
Get coffee and tea gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A University of Chicago study estimates a U.S. mandate for front-of-package ultraprocessed-food labels could cost the food industry $14 billion annually. The estimate includes reformulation and higher ingredient costs, but it is a study projection, not an announced government requirement; the FDA’s proposed definition remains under White House review.
A University of Chicago study estimates that requiring front-of-package labels for ultraprocessed foods could cost U.S. food companies $14 billion a year, largely through product reformulation and higher ingredient expenses. The figure describes a modeled outcome, not a rule currently in force: the FDA’s proposed definition of ultraprocessed foods remains under review, and the proposal itself would not be legally binding.
The study estimates that a labeling mandate would apply to 72% of packaged foods and products representing 51% of consumers’ grocery spending. Its projected annual industry costs comprise $9.5 billion for reformulation and $4.5 billion in higher ingredient costs. Those costs do not include potential litigation, according to the report.
The researchers also estimated that such a mandate could reduce domestic agriculture revenue by $1 billion a year and increase food imports by up to $9.7 billion a year. These are study estimates tied to a hypothetical labeling policy, not reported effects of an existing requirement.
The analysis used a definition developed by Healthy Eating Research, drawing on the Nova classification system. It identifies ultraprocessed products through certain ingredients associated with processing, while exempting items considered part of a healthy diet under the FDA’s criteria for a “healthy” claim. The study was conducted through the University of Chicago’s Initiative on Enabling Choice and Competition in Health Care.
Potential Costs Across Grocery Shelves
The projected coverage is broad: if a policy applied to nearly three-quarters of packaged foods, manufacturers could face pressure to change recipes across many product lines. The study’s estimate of $9.5 billion in reformulation costs reflects the expense of adjusting products to meet a labeling standard, while the additional $4.5 billion in ingredient costs represents a separate projected burden.
For shoppers, the study does not establish that grocery bills would rise by a particular amount. It estimates costs to industry and does not specify how companies might distribute those costs among consumers, suppliers, or their own margins. The projected effects on domestic agriculture and imports also indicate that a labeling policy could affect sectors beyond food manufacturing, though the extent would depend on the final rules and business responses.
The policy debate also concerns what consumers would learn from a label. Nutrition and medical experts have argued that a shared definition could help families compare products. Researchers behind this study say processing categories may not correspond directly with nutritional quality, and that labels based on those categories could influence consumer choices without indicating whether a food is nutritious.
Products Worth Considering
De'Longhi Linea Classic Espresso Machine with Adjustable Milk Frother
Breville Barista Pro Espresso Machine with Grinder, Brushed Stainless Steel
Instant Pot Pro Plus 6 Qt 10-in-1 Electric Pressure Cooker, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
FDA Definition Still Under Review
Federal work on a definition has become part of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative. The FDA sent a proposed definition to the White House about two months before the study’s publication, according to Food Dive. The proposal remains under review; the source material does not describe it as a finalized regulation or say that a labeling mandate has been adopted.
Last week, more than 100 nutrition and medical experts signed an open letter urging the Office of Management and Budget to release the definition. Their letter said publication alone would not impose requirements on food producers or retailers, limit what Americans could buy, or raise food prices. The study’s cost estimates, by contrast, model a separate potential policy: mandatory front-of-package labels based on the Healthy Eating Research definition.
The research authors say the relationship between food processing and nutrition is a key consideration. Their report states there is “no clear relationship between processing and nutritiousness” and warns that a rule based on processing categories could have unintended costs. These are the researchers’ conclusions; the source material does not establish how a future federal policy would affect diets or prices.
“There is no clear relationship between processing and nutritiousness.”
— University of Chicago study researchers
Policy Design and Price Effects Unknown
The $14 billion figure is a projection based on a hypothetical labeling mandate and the study’s chosen definition. The source material does not provide enough detail to assess how sensitive that estimate is to alternative definitions, exemptions, implementation timelines, or company responses. It also does not quantify how much of the projected industry cost, if any, could reach shoppers through retail prices.
The FDA’s proposed definition is still under White House review, and the source does not give a release date or describe the proposal’s final wording. It is also unclear whether federal officials will pursue mandatory labels, what products any eventual policy would cover, or whether litigation would add costs beyond those calculated in the study. The study’s estimates for agriculture revenue and imports remain projections, not observed changes.
White House Review Sets Next Step
The next documented milestone is the White House review of the FDA’s proposed ultraprocessed-food definition. The experts who signed the open letter are pressing the administration to release it, but the source material gives no timetable for a decision. Publication of a definition would not by itself establish a labeling mandate, according to the experts’ letter.
Any later proposal would need to clarify how ultraprocessed foods are identified, which products qualify for exemptions, and whether front-of-package disclosures would be required. Until officials publish those details or announce a rulemaking step, the study’s cost figures should be read as estimates of a possible policy scenario rather than costs companies are currently required to pay.
Key Questions
Would food companies have to pay these costs now?
No. The $14 billion annual estimate concerns a hypothetical labeling mandate. The source reports that the FDA’s proposed definition remains under review and does not say a labeling requirement is in effect.
How did the study calculate the $14 billion estimate?
The study divides the projected annual cost into $9.5 billion for reformulation and $4.5 billion for higher ingredient costs. It says the total does not include litigation costs.
How many products could be covered?
Under the study’s modeled definition, a mandate would apply to an estimated 72% of packaged foods, representing 51% of consumer grocery spending. These are study estimates, not coverage figures for a rule already adopted.
Would publishing the FDA definition require labels?
Not by itself, according to the open letter signed by nutrition and medical experts. The letter says releasing the proposed definition would not alone impose new requirements on producers or retailers; a separate policy decision would be needed to mandate labels.
Source: fooddive.com
