A major shift is occurring in food regulation with the Non-GMO Project announcing the introduction of a new label aimed at identifying foods without ultra-processed ingredients. This effort aligns with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposal for standardized front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling, which will highlight the presence of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. Starting as a pilot initiative set to launch in spring 2025, the Non-GMO Project’s Non-UPF Verified certification aims to empower consumers by aiding them in distinguishing between ultra-processed and minimally processed foods—similar to how the Non-GMO label has influenced purchasing behaviors.
The initiative seeks to encourage healthier eating habits, especially as research increasingly correlates the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) with severe health risks including depression, disrupted sleep, hormonal imbalances, and higher probabilities of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and cancer. A recent study by the Non-GMO Project revealed significant consumer sentiment, showing 85% of shoppers expressed a desire to avoid UPFs. Yet, another study by Innova Market Insights indicated consumer confusion persists, with many unable to accurately define ultra-processed foods, often confining the term to fast food alone.
Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project and the Food Integrity Collective, explained this struggle, stating, "Even the most informed consumers struggle to identify ultra-processed foods consistently." She highlights the broader concern of industrial food production distancing society from natural ingredients and states, "When we tackled GMOs in 2007, we saw...a new generation...designed with the same precision as cigarettes to trigger cravings."
Building upon these health concerns, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom issued directives on January 3 to explore actions addressing the dangers of UPFs, defining these products as formulations laden with chemically modified substances derived from food, rich with additives meant to improve taste and texture. This announcement came alongside the FDA's consideration of FOP nutrition labeling, where saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars will be categorized by their per-serving Daily Values (DV) as low, medium, or high.
While countries like Chile have seen effective declines in sugary drink sales after implementing stringent warning labels, obesity rates continue to rise, hinting at possible substitution effects rather than genuine consumer behavior change. Similarly, Canada’s Health Star Rating system has resulted in only minimal shifts in purchasing patterns. The UK has had mixed success with its traffic light system, casting doubt on whether labeling alone will drastically affect obesity rates.
Adding pressure to food corporations, new legal scrutiny has emerged. The law firm Morgan & Morgan recently filed suit against major producers like Mondelez, Kellanova, and Coca-Cola, alleging these companies have deliberately created UPFs to be addictive, which has contributed to rising chronic illness rates. Plaintiff Bryce Martinez alleges he developed type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease by age 16 due to consumption of these products. The lawsuit parallels strategies once employed by the tobacco industry to hook young consumers.
Meanwhile, Hilliard Law is gathering plaintiffs for another potential lawsuit—this time targeting the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) designation allowing companies to certify novel additives without stringent oversight. Advocates claim these practices have allowed unsafe food additives, posing risks to public health, to slip through regulatory cracks.
Complementing U.S. efforts, New Zealand has also taken steps toward labeling genetically modified food, with strong backing from the Food & Grocery Council. Chief Executive Raewyn Bleakley expressed support for the current labeling settings, which require foods produced via gene technology to carry clear labeling. "Embracing growth and innovation is...essential for New Zealand’s future prosperity," she noted, emphasizing the need for transparency about food contents.
Reflecting on global initiatives, the Georgetown University white paper published in 2024 critiques the effectiveness of existing labeling policies. Despite certain countries' efforts to regulate UPF consumption through various labeling tactics, the paper suggests these measures alone may not sufficiently affect obesity percentages, especially considering people with the highest body mass indices are often least likely to engage with nutrition labels.
Contemporary findings indicate not all UPFs hold the same nutritional weight. Some staples, like mass-produced bread, are often consumed more regularly than occasional indulgences, leading experts to suggest differentiated regulatory approaches. Positive reinforcement, such as ranking systems like Ahold Delhaize USA's 'Guiding Stars,' may serve as more effective motivators for consumers than warning labels alone.
With key sectors like snacks and bakery items under intense scrutiny for their high sugar and sodium content, the future balancing public health interests with consumer indulgences remains uncertain. Yet initiatives like Truefoods.com, created by Mass General Brigham, allow consumers to identify foods based on processing levels and provide transparency. This free-to-access database rates over 50,000 products by processing scores, making informed choices simpler for consumers.
Driven by advocates like Robert F Kennedy Jr., whose recent appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services fuels these health-centric movements, scrutiny around food handling and UPF consumption is likely to escalate. Together, these regulatory changes and consumer pressure prompt the question: Will such measures truly shift consumer behavior for the long haul? With evidence pointing toward complex consumer preferences, mixed outcomes from global initiatives reveal the need for continuing efforts beyond labeling to genuinely shift public health trajectories.