ARLINGTON, Va. — Two major trade associations are raising objections to separate federal actions targeting the U.S. food and health product supply, with both groups warning that the government's approach risks confusing consumers and disrupting product availability without a clear scientific basis.
The Consumer Brands Association pushed back hard against a federal effort to formally define "ultra-processed" food, calling the attempt scientifically unsound and warning it would confuse consumers and drive up grocery prices. In a statement Monday, Rhonda Bentz, the trade group's executive vice president of public affairs, said the packaged food industry's products have safely anchored American households for decades and that a guidance document "crafted without credible experts" shouldn't change that.
"Any so-called definition that captures 80% of the nation's food supply while picking winners and losers is fundamentally flawed, not based on sound science and politically motivated," Bentz said. She argued that "substituting rhetoric for real policy" would not meaningfully address public health concerns and would instead sow consumer confusion and raise grocery costs.
Bentz also took aim at the officials behind the effort, framing it as disconnected from the White House's broader economic priorities. "President Trump has taken numerous critical steps to keep prices low that our industry has welcomed, and it is unfortunate that some rogue unelected bureaucrats are trying to push this misguided definition without his knowledge," she said, adding that the association is "confident that this definition won't move forward" once the president is made aware of its potential impact on his affordability agenda.
Separately, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) raised its own concerns Monday about a distinct FDA proposal — a rule reforming the "Generally Recognized as Safe," or GRAS, framework that governs how food ingredients and other substances are cleared for use without full premarket review. While CHPA said it supports efforts to increase transparency and strengthen consumer confidence in the food supply, it warned the proposal could carry unintended consequences for dietary supplements and over-the-counter medicines.
"Improving transparency does not require upending a system that has long relied on scientific expertise and risk-based oversight," said Scott Melville, CHPA's president and CEO. "FDA should pursue practical reforms that strengthen public confidence while making the best use of agency resources to protect public health."
CHPA said it will closely evaluate several aspects of the GRAS proposal, including compliance timelines it considers unrealistic given the rule's broad scope; the absence of explicit federal preemption, which it said could fuel a patchwork of conflicting state requirements; whether FDA has sufficient resources to administer expanded notification requirements without creating delays that affect product availability; and whether the proposal strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and FDA's existing statutory authority.
The group said it looks forward to working with FDA and Congress toward "a single national standard that is grounded in science, workable in practice, and protects consumer access to safe products."
Together, the two statements reflect broader industry unease over FDA's expanding regulatory focus on food ingredients and classifications, with both associations calling for the agency to lean on established scientific review processes rather than what they characterize as rushed or under-resourced rulemaking. The Consumer Brands Association represents makers of packaged food, beverage, household and personal care products, while CHPA represents manufacturers of dietary supplements and OTC medicines.
