- Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT) launched in late 2025 with funding from major ultra-processed food companies and trade groups, positioning itself as an “ingredient transparency” advocate.
- California’s AB 1264 sets a state definition for “ultra-processed foods of concern” and phases them out of school meals from 2029 to 2035, pressuring reformulation and supply chains.
- MAHA-aligned federal dietary guidance similarly targets reduced sugar and ultra-processed foods and could drive more uniform national standards across nutrition programs.
- The industry is pushing back on broad definitions and state-by-state rules, and AFIT appears aimed at shaping these definitions and pre-empting stricter labeling and safety laws.
Read More
The emergence of Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT) signals a deliberate strategy by ultra-processed food companies to influence a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. While its stated mission is ingredient transparency, evidence suggests its formation is aligned with preserving industry influence over definitions and standards—particularly in staving off stricter laws at the state level. The AFIT senior advisors’ backgrounds in defending pesticide or corporate interests, and trade group backing, indicate its role in policy defense.
California’s AB 1264 (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act) is a landmark policy, typifying what AFIT seems to want to pre-empt. Key features include: creation of a statutory definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs); a phasing out timeline for “ultra-processed foods of concern” in school meals, competitive foods, and vendor offerings; and a focus on health-linked criteria (e.g., additives, high sugar, sodium, saturated fat). The law phases out the most harmful UPFs by 2035, with vendors excluded from supplying restricted foods by 2032.
The federal government’s shift under the MAHA initiative matches the trajectory seen in California: in early January 2026, updated dietary guidelines emphasized “whole, minimally processed foods,” limiting added sugars and artificial ingredients, intended to shape nutrition programs, school meals, SNAP definitions, and more. These policies threaten to erode regulatory arbitrage opportunities and may expose the food industry to national-level standards that override state-by-state patchwork.
Strategic implications for AFIT and its backers include lobbying to influence how APIs like California define UPFs, limiting the scope of “additives of concern,” and promoting uniform national standards to reduce compliance costs. They may also argue definitions infringe on trade or interstate commerce, especially if different states pursue divergent standards. For policymakers and investors, monitoring how definitions evolve—as it impacts supply chains, ingredient sourcing, manufacturing processes—is critical.
Open questions persist. How broadly or narrowly will criteria be drawn? Which additives or processing methods will be banned? To what extent will schools and vendors be able to reformulate (both in recipe and cost) without compromising nutritional value? And what will the federal definition under MAHA look like—and when will it be adopted? The answers will shape market opportunities, risks, and the competitive landscape in food manufacturing and retail.
Supporting Notes
- AFIT is funded by ultra-processed food/beverage companies including General Mills, Nestlé, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Tyson Foods; also trade associations (e.g. Consumer Brands Assoc., National Association of Manufacturers).
- AFIT senior advisors include Julie Gunlock (Independent Women’s Forum) who has defended products like e-cigarettes, sugary sweets, GMOs, pesticides; and Andy Koenig of Kwinn Consulting, former Trump legislative affairs official, connected to Koch network.
- AB 1264 signed October 8, 2025 requires California to define “ultra-processed foods of concern” by mid-2028, begin phasing out in school meals by July 2029, vendors banned by 2032, full ban by July 2035.
- Definition in CA law includes foods with industrial additives (e.g. stabilizers, emulsifiers, colors, flavor enhancers), plus high levels of saturated fat, added sugar, sodium or containing nonnutritive sweeteners. Exemptions for raw/minimally processed foods.
- MAHA-aligned federal dietary guidelines released January 7, 2026 promote increased protein, reduced sugar, whole/minimally processed food focus; includes emphasis on reducing ultra-processed foods in policies including school meals.
- Industry pushback: CA industry coalition warns that broad UPF definitions may classify processed foods with preservatives, vegan substitutes, or even items like canned vegetables as ultra-processed, possibly stigmatizing them.