Food makers say Kennedy’s ingredient rules would raise grocery bills and are pushing for a uniform federal standard. A new coalition, Americans for Ingredient Transparency, has launched ads, commissioned polls and increased lobbying to argue against state-by-state rules. Critics warn that federal preemption would favor large corporations and could weaken protections that states are pursuing.
Food Industry Pushes Back: ‘RFK Jr. Rules Will Raise Grocery Bills,’ Companies Say
Food manufacturers and trade groups are mobilizing to blunt Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign against ultraprocessed ingredients, arguing that the regulatory agenda he backs would raise grocery costs for American families. In October, major companies including Kraft Heinz, Nestle and PepsiCo helped launch Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT), a coalition that is running advertising and lobbying to promote a single federal standard and preempt state rules.
What’s at stake
Industry message: AFIT and its backers insist that a patchwork of state-by-state ingredient laws will increase compliance costs that will be passed on to consumers. "The dynamic here is affordability," said Sam Geduldig of lobbying firm CGCN, which represents Kraft Heinz.
Industry response and tactics
The coalition has commissioned polls, launched a six-figure ad buy and hired Republican advisers to frame the debate around inflation and grocery affordability. Lobbying spending by food companies reached record levels this year: the American Beverage Association spent $2.39 million in the first nine months, and Kraft Heinz reported $1.35 million for the same period — both highs for that reporting window.
State action and legal fights
At the same time, more than 100 state bills have been introduced to curb sugary drinks, synthetic food dyes and other additives common in ultraprocessed foods — a nearly fivefold increase from a year earlier. California enacted a first-in-the-nation ban on ultraprocessed foods in schools, and Texas passed a law requiring warning labels on products containing any of 44 additives; the industry is contesting the Texas law in court.
Public opinion and politics
Polls show two competing public impulses: widespread concern about grocery prices and significant worry about the health risks of ultraprocessed foods. A POLITICO/Public First poll found 45% of Americans name grocery bills as their most challenging expense. An October KFF/Washington Post survey found majorities view highly processed foods as a serious threat to children’s health.
“If you buy McDonald's french fries in our country, there's 11 ingredients,” Kennedy said at his confirmation hearing, criticizing additives and dyes in popular products.
Arguments For And Against Federal Preemption
Industry: Advocates of a federal standard say it simplifies compliance, reduces costs and prevents a confusing patchwork of state rules that would raise prices. AFIT argues federal regulation is the appropriate route for consistent rules nationwide.
Critics: MAHA supporters, consumer groups and environmental and public-health advocates counter that federal preemption would favor large multinationals and likely lead to weaker protections. "A federal standard favors large multinational companies with a lot of money to lobby for less restrictive standards," said Jennifer Galardi of the Heritage Foundation. Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group called preemption the "worst thing" for food safety.
Where this could go next
The battle will play out in state legislatures, the courts and Washington. Industry lobbyists say the preemption fight will be a top priority next year, and lawmakers in both parties are weighing positions. Whether a Republican-led Congress will back preemption or more limited federal rules will be a key test of business influence and political priorities ahead of 2026.
Reporting note: The article draws on public statements, polling and lobbying disclosures, and includes contributed reporting by Grace Yarrow.
