Federal efforts to define and regulate ultraprocessed foods, widely linked to chronic health conditions such as Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, have stalled amid industry pushback and bureaucratic delays, according to experts and recent reports. Ultraprocessed foods—items like ice cream, soda, and cookies—comprise over half of the average American diet and have been identified by health officials as major contributors to rising rates of chronic illness.
The federal government had been expected to release an official definition of ultraprocessed foods this month, a move seen as a foundational step toward more comprehensive food policies including front-of-package labeling and marketing restrictions. However, the planned announcement was postponed when the definition was sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for further review. Industry observers caution that this stage can either lead to swift approval or effectively stall the initiative indefinitely.
Sources close to the process indicate that major food industry executives lobbied White House officials to block or delay the release. They argued that defining ultraprocessed foods might confuse consumers and increase grocery prices, claims experts say are unsubstantiated. The Consumer Brands Association, a prominent industry lobbying group, expressed confidence that the definition would not move forward, warning that it could conflict with broader federal priorities on affordability.
This is not the first time the food industry has successfully delayed health regulations by appealing to economic concerns. In the previous year, proposed tougher standards aimed at reducing salmonella contamination in raw poultry were withdrawn after industry groups raised similar objections related to price impacts, leading the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retract the rules.
The controversy highlights tensions within government, particularly between Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, which calls for strict regulation of ultraprocessed foods as part of a broader push to overhaul the nation’s food system, and an administration that favors deregulation and has reduced staffing at key regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.
Industry efforts to shape policy also include opposing state-level definitions of ultraprocessed foods in favor of a single federal standard, likely because national rules are slower and more susceptible to influence. Since 2010, food companies have initiated numerous legal challenges worldwide against policies like front-of-package labeling and marketing restrictions, spending over $1 billion on federal lobbying in the last two decades—more than sectors like tobacco or gambling.
Critics of regulatory approaches argue that categorizing foods solely on processing levels risks ensnaring traditionally healthy products like yogurt, hummus, and certain breads. Industry representatives advocate for focusing regulations instead on specific nutritional components such as sugar, salt, or refined carbohydrates, which they can address through product reformulations without fundamentally altering their offerings.
In response, independent expert panels have recommended definitions that distinguish ultraprocessed foods based on the presence of industrial ingredients uncommon in home cooking, while exempting products meeting strict nutritional criteria. Such frameworks aim to provide clear guidelines using existing packaging information, mitigating industry concerns over broad classifications.
Despite current delays, public support remains strong for policies addressing ultraprocessed foods, including clearer labeling and restrictions on marketing to children. Health advocates urge the federal government to finalize a science-based definition soon or for Congress to enact legislation, viewing it as an essential first step toward improving dietary quality and reducing chronic disease burden in the United States.