California Lawmaker Proposes Non-UPF Food Label as Experts Warn It Could Backfire
Updated
Updated · The Washington Post · May 20
California Lawmaker Proposes Non-UPF Food Label as Experts Warn It Could Backfire
3 articles · Updated · The Washington Post · May 20
A California State Assembly member introduced a bill in March to create a certification for foods labeled non-ultra-processed, adding to a growing market for similar private verification programs.
The push faces a basic problem: there is still no standard definition of ultra-processed food, despite federal interest in setting one, making any certification inherently subjective.
Nutrition and marketing experts cited in the report say a non-UPF seal could give junk food a health halo, encouraging consumers to eat more of products reformulated just enough to qualify.
Examples in the report show some certified non-UPF cookies can look nutritionally similar to uncertified rivals, suggesting the label may track processing rules more closely than actual healthfulness.
The broader takeaway is that package labels have repeatedly failed to improve U.S. diets, and the report argues non-UPF claims are unlikely to change eating habits much either.
If scientists can't agree on what 'ultra-processed' means, how can consumers trust a label based on it?
Can a food label truly change our diets, or will the industry always find a way to sell us junk food?
With millions now taking weight-loss drugs that curb cravings, are new 'non-processed' food labels already obsolete?