TL;DR
Get kitchen staples and gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A University of Pennsylvania survey reported that 73% of U.S. adults, on average, supported six policies tied to regulating food chemicals and additives. Support for labeling ultraprocessed foods reached 80%, including among people who do not identify with the Make America Healthy Again movement.
A University of Pennsylvania survey found broad support among U.S. adults for food policies associated with the Make America Healthy Again movement, even among people who do not support the movement. Respondents backed six proposals on chemicals and additives at an average rate of 73%, while 80% supported labeling ultraprocessed foods, putting the issue at the top of the surveyed proposals.
The survey was conducted by the university’s Annenberg Public Policy Center and asked participants to rank 17 MAHA agenda issues, spanning food policy and vaccine regulation. Across the six proposals concerning food chemicals and additives, average support was 83% among MAHA supporters and 73% among those who did not support MAHA. The figures reflect the groups’ responses to those proposals; they do not show that every respondent favored every policy.
Ultraprocessed food labeling received the highest support among all respondents, at 80%. The study also found that 31% of non-MAHA supporters ranked labeling among their three highest priorities. Regulating chemical additives led the broader set of food-policy priorities across MAHA supporters, nonsupporters and people unsure about the movement. Removing highly processed foods from school lunches also ranked near the top in all three groups.
The survey found that about one-quarter of Americans identify as MAHA supporters, according to the report. The policy findings suggest that support for particular food measures is broader than identification with the movement itself. They do not establish whether respondents would support a specific bill, what form a labeling rule should take, or how much consumers would change their purchasing as a result.
Food Rules Have Wider Appeal
The findings indicate that debate over food additives and processing labels may draw support beyond the political identity most closely linked to the MAHA agenda. That distinction matters for lawmakers and regulators weighing policy: public backing for a specific measure may persist even if support for the movement as a whole is limited or changes.
There are potential consequences for both consumers and food manufacturers. A federal definition of ultraprocessed food could provide a basis for consistent labeling or later rules, while also requiring companies to assess how products are classified and disclosed. The survey measures stated preferences, however, and does not show that a policy will be enacted or that support would remain unchanged once costs and details are specified.
Products Worth Considering
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
KitchenAid 13-Cup Food Processor, KFP1318, Contour Silver
Le Creuset Enamemed Cast Iron Oval Dutch Oven, 5 qt., White/Crucible
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The FDA Definition Is Pending
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet released an interpretation defining ultraprocessed food, according to the source report. The agency’s definition is a key unresolved step: it could inform future labeling requirements or other regulation, but the survey itself does not prescribe a definition or a regulatory approach.
More than 100 nutrition and medical experts recently signed an open letter urging the Office of Management and Budget to release the delayed definition, the report said. In Congress, Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Cory Booker have introduced legislation that would require the FDA to define the term. The report also cited a University of Chicago study estimating that a mandatory label could cost the food industry $14 billion annually, including $9.5 billion for reformulation. Those figures are an estimate from that separate study, not a cost finding from the Pennsylvania survey.
Survey Support Is Not a Mandate
The available report does not provide the survey’s full methodology, including its sample size, field dates, or margins of error. Those details are needed to assess how precisely the percentages represent the U.S. population. The figures describe respondents’ expressed support, not votes, purchasing behavior or agreement on the design of a particular regulation.
It also remains unclear when the FDA will publish its definition, what criteria it would use, and whether any resulting label or rule would apply broadly. The cited industry-cost estimate comes from a separate study and should not be treated as a confirmed cost of a policy that has not yet been specified.
FDA Definition and Bills Ahead
The next policy milestones are the FDA’s release of its delayed ultraprocessed-food definition and any subsequent federal action on labeling or additives. Congress may also take up the legislation introduced by Blumenthal and Booker, while state-level food rules continue to develop, according to the report.
Until the definition and proposed requirements are public, the scope, timing and costs of possible federal rules remain unsettled. Further survey details or later polling could also clarify whether reported support holds when consumers are asked about specific label designs or policy trade-offs.
Key Questions
What did the University of Pennsylvania survey find?
The survey found an average of 73% support for six food-chemical and additive policies associated with MAHA. Support for ultraprocessed food labeling was 80% among all respondents.
Did support for food policies come only from MAHA supporters?
No. The report says support for the six policies averaged 83% among MAHA supporters and 73% among nonsupporters. It also found that 31% of nonsupporters ranked ultraprocessed-food labeling among their top three priorities.
Has the FDA defined ultraprocessed food?
Not yet, according to the report. The FDA’s delayed interpretation could inform future labeling or regulation, but its timing and criteria remain unclear.
Does the survey mean a labeling rule will be adopted?
No. The survey reports respondents’ views; it does not determine whether Congress or regulators will adopt a rule. The form and costs of any policy also remain unsettled.
Source: fooddive.com
