That’s the estimate a new study places on what it will cost food makers to comply with new UPF labelling regulations recently enacted in California, and pending across the US. And the cost could be passed on to consumers…
The point is, they won’t want their products to bear the stigma of being labelled as UPFs. And, so, will have to reformulate them with healthier ingredients – an R&D effort that will cost them dearly.
A clear definition
The first step in the process is to arrive at a clear definition of what an Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) is. Given that understanding, which would apply uniformly across the US, labelling regulations could then be developed on a logical basis, and applied objectively and fairly.
A proposed definition of UPFs has been submitted to the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for it’s consideration. But the details have not been made public. However, the University of Chicago team that formulated the definition is known to have based its recommendations on, “a definition put forward by Healthy Eating Research, which also has backing from major nutrition and health experts.”
What labelling would do
Such labelling would make clear to consumers and retailers what is officially a UPF, allowing the unequivocal categorization of products for purposes of other regulations governing public health and associated issues.
“A labeling mandate would apply to 72 percent of packaged foods and encompass 51 percent of consumers’ grocery spending, the study said. The total cost number includes $9.5 billion a year for companies to reformulate and $4.5 billion in higher ingredient costs,” a Food Dive story reports.
The up side…
Given clear front-of-label identification of UPFs, consumers could easily decide – based on health concerns – if they wanted to buy certain foods or not.
A clear defnition of what’s a UPF or not would likewise help industry stakeholders decide whether to support new food products and initiatives or not.
Such labelling would also help inform lawmakers who were trying to formulate new measures de-signed to protect the public – such as the ban on the use of SNAP benefits for buying junk food.
The down side…
As we headlined… A clear definition of what is, and is not, a UPF would force food makers to make expensive changes to affected products to avoid the stigma of having to carry conspicuous front-of-label warnings.
Some companies could go out of business under pressure from plummeting sales, costing their communities jobs, and paycheques no longer spent there.
Those expenses could, in the end, make ‘eating better’ more expensive for consumers, as costs are passed on.
My take
UPF labelling is a huge step toward improving public awareness of what’s healthy and what’s not, on their supermarket shelves. That should lead to a significant improvement in public health, in general. And, in turn, monumental health care costs should be reduced sharply.
But that’s all assuming the plan works, and masses of ordinary Americans act on the warnings UPF labelling will provide…
~ Maggie J.