The author of a recent University of Chicago study evaluating the economic impact of a federal “ultra-processed” foods (“UPFs”) definition published an op-ed in The Washington Post highlighting how the federal definition could lead to regulatory action like mandatory labeling, which would add estimated annual costs of $14.2 billion to suppliers and consumers. The op-ed, “What does ‘ultra-processed’ mean? RFK Jr.’s definition will cost you,” also underscores the distinction between how a food is made and its nutritional value.

The full story can be found here, and highlights include:

 “A new University of Chicago study found that a UPF labeling mandate would apply to 72 percent of packaged products and 51 percent of grocery spending. We estimated added annual costs of $14.2 billion on suppliers and consumers, 142 times the $100 million threshold that OMB uses to define economically significant actions…Unfortunately, the costs would mean higher prices on foods, whether they meet the UPF definition or not.”

“Processing is what keeps good nutrition affordable. Freezing, canning, fortifying and preserving are what allow budget-conscious families to buy vegetables in January that keep for months, derive folate and iron from boxed goods, and get bread that won’t go stale by Thursday. Makers reformulating to escape the definition will most likely use costlier ingredients and accept shorter shelf lives, meaning more spoilage and waste. Taxing foods through regulation inflates prices and cuts purchases, and the poor, who spend the largest share of income on food, bear the heaviest burden.”

“Well-intended regulations to protect consumers often end up harming them. “Ultra-processed” describes a production method. Penalizing it by writing it into federal policy raises the cost of much healthy eating for low-income families, while lawmakers claim a dubious victory for public health.”