Since being appointed as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy is on a crusade to Make America Healthy Again, which has come to be known as the MAHA movement.
A key component of the secretary's strategy is to pursue policy reforms and new regulations around ultra-processed foods (UPFs). While these actions at the federal level have grabbed all the headlines, scrutiny has also been growing at the state level. Food manufacturers and others must track these changes carefully and adapt to minimize the associated litigation and strategic risks.
The MAHA movement’s agenda
In May 2025, the MAHA Commission — established via an executive order by the president in February (opens a new window) — published an assessment that explicitly pointed to UPFs and food additives as contributing to a “child health crisis” (opens a new window) in America. According to the commission’s report, roughly 70% of the branded food products in U.S. grocery stores are ultra‐processed, and over two-thirds of the calories American children consume come from such products.
The report cast concern over many common additives, including emulsifiers, sweeteners, and colorants, as well the ubiquitous and excessive usage of sugars, fats, and refined seed oils. It concluded by asserting that cumulative exposure to these ingredients raises the risk of obesity, diabetes, liver disease, and other long-term conditions.
While the assertions around additives, in particular, require further study, manufacturers of food and beverages must prepare for an onslaught of consumer litigation and government regulatory action. Litigation and enforcement will likely focus on:
Allegations that companies engineered UPFs to be addictive or hyperpalatable.
Claims of failure to warn consumers of chronic disease risks.
Marketing directed at children.
Mislabeling or deceptive health claims about products marketed as “healthy” despite containing additives or refined ingredients.
General counsel should be prepared for these cases to feature claims of negligence, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, consumer fraud/unfair business practices, breach of warranty, and more.
How you can take action
The consumer packaged goods sector recently prevailed in one early case, with a court ruling that manufacturers were not responsible for the health problems of a plaintiff, who had admittedly lived on a diet of junk food for many years. This early precedent may reduce some anxieties for players in the food sector.
Still, companies should remain vigilant, as there are many parallels here to the early stages of the big tobacco litigation. This means even if no damages or negligence are proven, headaches and legal costs for food manufacturers are likely to keep growing.
Specifically, companies should look to mitigate:
Product design and formulation risk.
Products that rely heavily on refined oils, emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, or other “industrial” additives may now be subject to regulatory review and litigation challenges, on grounds of health effects or deceptive marketing. Food companies should carefully check formulations to ensure consistency with any advertised commitments to remove or avoid specific ingredients. Companies should start early on any expected reformulations, as R&D and supply chain pivots often take longer than expected.
Labeling and marketing risk.
Advertising and packaging language should be carefully reviewed to minimize risks. Claims such as “clean label,” “all-natural,” “better for you,” or indicating health/benefit claims will be under increased scrutiny. Marketing to children or use of characters/cartoons in packaging may increase liability.
Food industry lobbyists have already mobilized to fight marketing restrictions that could hurt sales. For example, the National Chicken Council and the National Pork Producers Council have submitted comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture warning against adopting a broad classification system for UPFs, which they argue could mislead consumers and harm producers of nutritious meat products.Regulatory compliance risk.
The food industry faces a triple threat of pressure from consumer advocacy groups, state regulators, and federal authorities. These groups are likely to seek to redefine “safe” ingredients, mandate front-of-package disclosures, restrict UPFs in schools, and possibly impose restrictions on benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Food companies should take advantage of public comment opportunities by ensuring that industry concerns are heard in both federal and state legislative forums considering MAHA-type rules and legislation.
Litigation risk.
Proving causation remains a tough bar for plaintiffs and regulators to clear. But it is not difficult for them to file lawsuits — including class actions — or take regulatory action. This can force food and beverage companies to incur significant costs to defend or settle suits or to pay penalties. It can also lead to significant reputational harm.
Staying informed of the rapidly evolving risk landscape and adapting quickly is the best defense. Avoiding litigation is always better than having savvy legal strategies.Insurance and indemnity risk.
Standard product liability or general liability insurance may not cover novel litigation risks tied to UPFs. Companies must assess coverage details and gaps, and stay informed of new coverages, which often emerge ahead of large industry changes like this.
Risks for companies — and opportunity
The MAHA movement has fundamentally shifted the regulatory and legal landscape for UPFs. Food, beverage, and grocery companies must act now: Revisit supply chain contracts, upgrade and verify insurance coverage, fortify labeling and marketing compliance, proactively reformulate where feasible, and stay ahead of regulatory changes. The cost of inaction — from legal defense and settlement costs and regulatory fines to market exclusion and reputational damage — could be existential threats for some.
New risks, however, are often big opportunities for those who move quickly. Companies that move early — aligning their products, marketing, and supply chains with the healthier, less‐processed future that MAHA anticipates — will not only reduce risks but be better positioned to compete in a market increasingly sensitive to the health implications of UPFs.
For more information on UPF risks and how you can build more effective insurance programs, contact a member of Lockton’s Food, Agriculture, and Beverage team.
