State Impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025
image/svg+xml Skip to main content
Search image/svg+xml
Home
/
Insider
/
•••

Key Takeaways:

  • Federal agencies are seeking to establish a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods following significant state legislative activity in 2025, as states created varying definitions due to the absence of an official federal standard. In 2025, 15 states introduced bills aimed at defining “ultra-processed foods”.
  • Most state legislation uses the "standard 11" additives definition including common food dyes and preservatives, with Arizona becoming the first state to enact this approach for school food restrictions and seven other states proposing identical language. Three bills contained a provision defining “ultra-processed foods,” but the term and definition were ultimately removed as the bills advanced.
  • Some states are pursuing broader definitions that include additional chemical additives or take function-based approaches rather than specific ingredient lists, with California and Pennsylvania defining ultra-processed foods by substance function rather than enumerated additives.


On July 25, 2025, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Brooke L. Rollins issued a joint Request for Information to develop a uniform definition of “ultra-processed foods (UPFs).” However, as is often the case, this federal activity comes after a wave of legislative activity at the state level during the 2025 legislative session.


How Are Ultra-Processed Foods Currently Defined?

The United States currently relies on the NOVA Classification System’s 2009 definition of UPFs, but this interpretation has never been codified into law. The absence of an official definition led state lawmakers to establish their own definitions in 2025, resulting in varying lists of food additives and approaches used to define the term.


How States Are Defining Ultra-Processed Foods in Legislation

Arizona became the first state to enact a definition of UPFs in HB 2164, which, beginning in the 2026-2027 school year, prohibits schools from distributing, selling, or otherwise offering UPFs, defined as “a food or beverage that contains one or more of the following ingredients: Potassium Bromate, Propylparaben, Titanium Dioxide, Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO), Yellow Dye 5, Yellow Dye 6, Blue Dye 1, Blue Dye 2, Green Dye 3, Red Dye 3, and Red Dye 40.” This group of additives is commonly referred to as the “standard 11.” 

Legislation in seven other states — Alabama (HB 580), Florida (SB 1826), Kentucky (HB 439), Missouri (SB 802), New Jersey (S 4560), North Carolina (HB 874), and South Carolina (HB 4339 and SB 589) — included identical definitions. 


In Texas, HB 3292 would define UPFs similarly to Arizona, but expands upon the definition to include any additive that is substantially similar to the “standard 11.” HB 1962 proposes an almost identical definition to AZ HB 2164, with the exception of excluding Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO). Lawmakers in Utah initially included the “standard 11” definition of UPFs in the state’s bill restricting food additives in schools, HB 402; however, the term was removed through amendments before it was signed into law.


Expanded Additive Lists and Broader Definitions

When originally introduced, two prominent pieces of food additive legislation in Louisiana defined UPFs using a more extensive list of additives than the above-mentioned states. However, similar to Utah, lawmakers later eliminated the term through amendments to the bills. Missouri also considered a bill defining UPFs using a broader list of additives:

  • Louisiana SB 14 would have included Azodicarbonamide (ADA), Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA), and Butylated Hydroxytoluene in addition to the 10 additives or substances in Arkansas’ UPF definition.

  • Louisiana SB 117 would have included Aspartame, Cottonseed Oil, Grapeseed Oil, and Safflower Oil in addition to the “standard 11.” This measure was vetoed.

  • Missouri HB 1412 would include Azodicarbonamide (ADA), Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA), and P-hydroxybenzoate in addition to the “standard 11.” 


Function-Based Definitions Gain Federal Support

Bills introduced in California and Pennsylvania would take a different approach by defining UPFs based on the function of substances in food and beverage products rather than listing specific additives. Both AB 1264 in California and HB 1132 in Pennsylvania would classify any food or beverage that contains a substance that acts as a surface-active agent; stabilizer and thickener; propellant, aerating agent, and gas; colors and coloring adjunct; emulsifier and emulsifier salt; flavoring agent and enhancer (excluding spices and natural seasonings), surface-finishing agent, and non-nutritive sweetener as a UPF. On July 26, 2025, Secretary Kennedy spoke at the National Governors Association 2025 Summer Meeting and voiced his support for California’s proposed definition of UPFs.

Similarly, Massachusetts H 539 would define UPFs as industrial formulations of food substances never or rarely used in kitchens — such as high-fructose corn syrup — or classes of additives designed to make the final product palatable, appealing, or preservable. These include substances used as flavors, flavor enhancers, colors, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, nitrates, nitrites, preservatives, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents.


Tracking State Food and Grocery Legislation 

MultiState’s team is actively identifying and tracking food and grocery issues so that businesses and organizations have the information they need to navigate and effectively engage. If your organization would like to further track this or other related issues, please contact us.