Major packaged food companies are facing heightened business and legal risks as public health scrutiny over ultra-processed foods (UPFs) intensifies across the United States and international markets. Corporations including Conagra, Kraft Heinz, JM Smucker, PepsiCo, and The Campbell’s Co. have warned investors in recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings that pending litigation, state-level legislation, and federal policy shifts could dampen consumer demand, drive up compliance costs, and force costly product reformulations.
SEC Filings Reveal Industry Fears Over UPF Scrutiny
In recent financial disclosures, major consumer packaged goods firms highlight that growing regulatory attention surrounding ultra-processed foods poses a direct threat to their bottom lines. According to SEC filings, companies such as Conagra, Kraft Heinz, and JM Smucker point to ongoing and potential litigation alleging that UPFs cause adverse health effects as a notable financial hazard. Meanwhile, PepsiCo and The Campbell’s Co. caution that negative public perceptions regarding these foods could erode consumer demand and trigger expensive product re-engineering or relabeling initiatives.
Among the most explicit warnings submitted to regulators, Campbell’s noted in a September 24 10-K filing that heightened regulatory scrutiny could force sweeping changes. The filing explicitly states that policy proposals from bodies like the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, alongside state-level legislative actions, risk establishing new definitions, labeling requirements, marketing restrictions, or reformulation mandates that increase compliance costs or depress product demand.
Policy Pressures From the MAHA Commission and Federal Agencies
The regulatory headwinds facing Big Food are heavily influenced by the MAHA Commission’s May 2025 “Make Our Children Healthy Again” assessment. The report identifies ultra-processed foods as a primary driver of childhood chronic disease, linking higher consumption directly to nutrient depletion, increased caloric intake, and exposure to harmful additives. Although subsequent reviews uncovered citation and reference errors—which the Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged as formatting issues while maintaining the report’s core conclusions—the document’s fallout has been swift.
The Commission has pushed for federal dietary guidance advising consumers to "eat real food" and avoid highly processed alternatives, alongside federal action to formally define UPFs. While initial agency plans pointed toward formal rulemaking to establish a strict legal definition for ultra-processed foods, that effort was subsequently downgraded to a white paper submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on August 3.
State Legislation and Ingredient Reformulations
While federal regulatory definitions move slowly through administrative channels, individual U.S. states are advancing binding legislative frameworks. California has passed legislation establishing a voluntary “non-ultraprocessed certified” state seal for food packaging. The bill broadly defines UPFs to encompass any food or beverage containing functional additives—such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, colors, flavor enhancers, and non-nutritive sweeteners—as well as products exceeding specific thresholds for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.
Beyond broad UPF classifications, the MAHA Commission has targeted specific food additives linked by studies to increased risks of mental disorders, ADHD, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and carcinogenic effects. This intense regulatory and public pressure is already driving voluntary reformulation efforts across the industry, with consumer packaged goods manufacturers—including Campbell’s—beginning to remove certain synthetic food dyes from their product portfolios.
Keep reading