TL;DR
Get kitchen 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 that mandatory front-of-package labels for ultraprocessed foods could cost food companies $14 billion a year through reformulation and higher ingredient costs. The estimate is based on a proposed labeling approach, not an adopted federal rule; the FDA’s proposed definition remains under review.
A University of Chicago study estimates that requiring front-of-package labels for ultraprocessed foods could add $14 billion a year in costs for the U.S. food industry. The estimate concerns a hypothetical mandate, not a rule currently in force, and comes as the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed definition of ultraprocessed foods remains under review.
The study attributes $9.5 billion annually of the estimated costs to companies reformulating products and another $4.5 billion to higher ingredient costs. Researchers said a labeling requirement under the definition used in their analysis would cover 72% of packaged foods, representing 51% of consumer grocery spending.
The researchers modeled the mandate using a definition from Healthy Eating Research, which draws on the Nova classification system and identifies ultraprocessed foods by certain ingredients associated with processing. Products that meet the FDA’s criteria for a “healthy” claim would be exempt under the definition used in the analysis.
The study also estimates that the hypothetical requirement could mean $1 billion a year in lost revenue for domestic agriculture and increase food imports by as much as $9.7 billion annually. The $14 billion industry estimate does not include possible litigation costs. These figures are estimates from the study, not observed effects of an enacted policy.
Potential Costs Across Food Supply
The study’s estimates point to possible effects beyond manufacturers’ compliance budgets. If a labeling policy prompted companies to change recipes or ingredient sourcing, the costs could reach suppliers and domestic agriculture as well as food producers. The researchers’ projected agricultural revenue loss and higher imports reflect their model, not confirmed outcomes.
For consumers, the practical effects remain uncertain. The report does not establish whether companies would pass any additional costs on through retail prices, absorb them, or change product offerings. Nor does the estimate show how shoppers would respond to labels. The question matters because supporters of a shared definition see it as a way to give consumers clearer information, while the study warns that compliance costs could affect food production and prices.
Products Worth Considering
Makita SP6000J1 6-1/2-Inch Plunge Circular Saw Kit with 55-Inch Guide Rail
EGO Power+ 9-Gallon Cordless Wet/Dry Shop Vacuum (WDV0904) with 56V 5.0Ah Battery and Charger
DEWALT 8-1/4-Inch Portable Table Saw with Stand (DWE7485WS)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Federal Definition Still Under Review
The FDA submitted a proposed definition of ultraprocessed foods to the White House about two months before the study’s publication. The proposal is not legally binding and remains under review; it does not, by itself, create a labeling requirement. Defining the category has become part of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, though efforts to advance a definition have faced industry opposition.
More than 100 nutrition and medical experts recently signed an open letter urging the Office of Management and Budget to release the administration’s proposed definition. The letter argued that publication alone would not impose requirements on food companies or retailers, restrict products, or raise prices, but would give families and businesses a common standard. The Chicago study examines a different, more specific scenario: a mandatory front-of-package label based on the Healthy Eating Research definition.
“There is no clear relationship between processing and nutritiousness.”
— University of Chicago study researchers
Policy and Price Effects Remain Open
The study estimates costs under a modeled mandate; it does not report costs incurred under a federal labeling rule. The FDA definition is still under review, and no mandatory ultraprocessed-food labeling policy is described in the source material as having been adopted. The eventual definition, if released, could differ from the Healthy Eating Research standard used in the analysis.
It is also unclear whether federal officials will propose labels, what products any future policy might cover, or how exemptions would be set. The study does not quantify the effect on grocery prices or account for litigation, and its agricultural and import projections depend on the policy assumptions used. The source material does not establish how consumers’ health or purchasing choices would change under a mandate.
Watch for Definition and Rulemaking
The next immediate development is whether the administration releases its proposed ultraprocessed-food definition and how the FDA or other federal agencies respond. Publication of a definition would not automatically create labeling duties, according to the experts’ letter. Any move toward a binding requirement would require further policy decisions, including a definition, covered products, and implementation details.
Until those steps occur, the $14 billion figure remains a study estimate for a hypothetical mandate. Further analysis would be needed to determine how a specific policy affects company costs, domestic agricultural revenue, imports, product prices, and consumer choices.
Key Questions
What does the $14 billion estimate cover?
The University of Chicago study estimates $9.5 billion a year in reformulation costs and $4.5 billion in higher ingredient costs for the food industry under a hypothetical labeling mandate. It excludes possible litigation costs.
Are ultraprocessed-food labels required in the United States now?
The source material describes no federal mandate currently in force. The estimate concerns a hypothetical policy, while the FDA’s proposed definition remains under review and is not legally binding.
How many products could the modeled labels cover?
Under the definition used in the study, the mandate would apply to an estimated 72% of packaged foods and products representing 51% of consumer grocery spending.
Could the labels raise grocery prices?
The study estimates costs for companies but does not establish how those costs would affect retail prices. Companies could respond in different ways, and the source material provides no confirmed price impact.
What happens next with the federal definition?
The FDA’s proposed definition remains under review. Whether it will be released or lead to a separate labeling proposal is not clear from the available information.
Source: rss
