No agreed-upon definition. No consistent science. Just a new label – and higher costs at the grocery store.

Can’t Regulate What You Can’t Define

There is no single agreed-upon, science-based definition of “ultra-processed food.” Not among researchers. Not among regulators. “Ultra-processed” is a grab-bag term that throws wildly different foods into one bucket, and you don’t build a federal mandate on a term nobody can pin down.

Regulating a Turkey Sandwich the Same as a Slice of Cake Makes Zero Nutritional Sense

Putting a turkey sandwich and a slice of cake in the same regulatory bucket isn’t science. It’s guesswork with a federal seal on it. A rule that can’t tell a deli counter from a vending machine isn’t protecting anyone.

Meat is Already One of the Most Regulated Foods in America

Every meat and poultry product with more than one ingredient already answers to USDA Standards of Identity, a strict federal definition of exactly what it can and can’t contain. Adding a vague “ultra-processed” label won’t make food safer, it will just make it more confusing.

Higher Costs at a Time Families Are Already Struggling to Afford Groceries

Family budgets are already stretched thin. This new federal label means new compliance costs, new packaging, and new legal exposure, all for food that hasn’t changed at all. A vague, undefined category isn’t just bad regulation, it’s an open invitation to trial lawyers. Every dollar spent fighting frivolous lawsuits gets built into the price of food.

None of that makes anyone healthier, and it certainly doesn’t make shopping for groceries any clearer. It just means the same food will cost more at the register.

Washington Shouldn’t Regulate What It Can’t Define – Say No to “Ultra-Processed” Food Labels.