A Federal “Ultra-Processed Food” Label Would Raise Grocery Bills

Once again, Washington, D.C. politicians and bureaucrats are setting up their trial lawyer friends for a massive payday—while leaving taxpayers and consumers with the bill.

On August 3, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly submitted a “White Paper: Proposed Definition of Ultra-Processed Food” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. While the document isn’t public nor is it open for comment, what is clear is that a federal definition of “ultra-processed food” (UPF) would open the door to federal and state labeling mandates and new restrictions on the foods that millions of Americans rely on every day.

Last month, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) joined 15 other watchdog and free-market organizations in a letter urging OMB Director Russell Vought to reject the proposed definition and let Americans make their own decisions on what to eat.

Here are three critical reasons why a federal UPF definition makes no sense:

There is no scientific consensus on a UPF definition. A UPF definition would almost certainly sweep up healthy and affordable grocery staples like whole-grain bread, yogurt, fortified cereals, and frozen chicken breasts into the same category as less healthy foods. By the FDA’s own account, an estimated 70 percent of the U.S. food supply is comprised of foods commonly considered “ultra-processed.” Foods get swept into the category based on their ingredients (even if said ingredients are perfectly safe) or if they undergo any sort of processing, not their nutritional value. This is government overreach at its worst.

Trial lawyers would benefit at consumers’ expense. Taxpayers and consumers should be especially concerned because this fight is already showing up in courtrooms. Resulting settlements and payouts will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher grocery prices. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and government offices are pursuing more than ten UPF-related lawsuits against American food companies in federal and state courts right now, and in December 2025, the San Francisco City Attorney filed its own suit against multiple companies over UPF allegations. That’s before the federal government has even finalized its definition.

A government-endorsed white paper would lead to an onslaught of more frivolous lawsuits. As TPA’s coalition letter to OMB put it, plaintiffs’ attorneys “would likely cite a government-endorsed White Paper in product-liability, consumer-protection, and other litigation against food manufacturers.” A vague federal definition hands trial lawyers exactly the kind of ambiguous standard that turns into thousands of lawsuits and turns the grocery store into a legal minefield. Consumers pay the price through higher prices at the checkout.

New manufacturing rules mean even higher prices. It’s no secret that American consumers are paying more at the grocery store, and the tab increases by the day. Food is expensive enough right now without bureaucrats meddling and punishing struggling households. That’s why this UPF definition couldn’t come at a worse time. State and federal labeling mandates that will follow the federal definition will force food manufacturers to reformulate products and redesign packaging. Most of these companies won’t be able to absorb these costs, so they will get passed onto consumers. And it won’t stop at the federal level. Once Washington sets a definition, states will layer on their own rules, taxes, and marketing restrictions on top of it. California already enacted its own UPF definition last fall. Food producers will be forced to navigate a patchwork of fifty different regulatory system just to sell the same product nationwide.

TPA urges OMB to reject the proposed definition and let families make informed and healthy choices for their own households. HHS and FDA should focus on providing accessible and straightforward resources to help people build balanced diets, not on new confusing definitions.

American consumers should not be forced to pad the pockets of trial lawyers.