U.S. Litigation Over Ultra-Processed Foods and the Emerging Non-UPF Certification SystemJay Lee’s U.S. Market Report (176)

California’s AB 2244 advances as a proposed certification framework for ultra-processed foods

Qualifying products could carry a “Non-UPF” designation, with retailers required to provide prominent placement

Consumers seek $1 billion in damages from major ultra-processed food manufacturers

Korean food exporters should prepare for increased scrutiny of products containing complex ingredients and multiple additives

Jay Lee, President, J&B Food Consulting

“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids.”

This pointed statement from California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, one of the lawmakers at the center of the state’s ongoing debate over ultra-processed foods, captures the broader concern behind AB 2244, proposed legislation addressing standards and certification for foods marketed as non-ultra-processed. The bill passed the California State Assembly by an overwhelming 74–0 vote and is now proceeding through the Senate legislative process.

The U.S. food market is approaching a significant turning point. On one side is the emergence of a potential government-recognized framework for identifying and certifying non-ultra-processed foods (Non-UPF). On the other is a growing wave of litigation targeting major food manufacturers over allegations involving ultra-processed foods.

Together, these developments create both regulatory and litigation risks that global food companies—and particularly Korean food exporters seeking to expand in the U.S. market—should closely monitor.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) generally refer to industrially formulated food products that may contain ingredients or additives such as sweeteners, colors, emulsifiers, and other substances used to enhance shelf life, flavor, texture, or appearance.

Such foods account for a substantial portion of the American diet. At the same time, a growing body of research has reported associations between diets high in ultra-processed foods and adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers.

One practical challenge is that consumers may find it extremely difficult to determine whether a particular product should be considered ultra-processed simply by reviewing a lengthy ingredient list containing unfamiliar technical terms.

AB 2244 and the Proposed Non-UPF Certification Framework

AB 2244 seeks to address this uncertainty by establishing a more standardized framework for identifying foods that meet specified criteria.

Similar in concept to familiar certification systems such as USDA Organic, the proposed framework would operate under oversight involving the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and qualified third-party certifiers. Products meeting the applicable standards could display a “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” designation.

For consumers, such a front-of-package designation could provide a simpler way to identify qualifying products without having to interpret lengthy ingredient lists.

The proposal also addresses product visibility within large retail establishments. Retailers meeting specified revenue thresholds could be required to provide qualifying certified products with prominent placement or visibility in areas where consumers are more likely to encounter them.

If implemented, such requirements could create a meaningful commercial incentive for manufacturers to reformulate products in order to qualify for certification. In other words, Non-UPF certification could become more than a labeling issue—it could influence product formulation, merchandising, and retail competitiveness.

Litigation Risk Is Growing Alongside Regulatory Pressure

While California is addressing ultra-processed foods through legislation, the issue is also increasingly appearing in U.S. courts.

Litigation involving allegations concerning ultra-processed foods has drawn attention to some of the largest food manufacturers operating in the United States.

Consumers have brought claims involving major companies such as Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, Mondelēz International, Nestlé USA, General Mills, and Coca-Cola, with reported damages sought reaching approximately $1 billion.

These cases illustrate a broader issue for the food industry: UPF-related concerns may increasingly create exposure not only through new legislation and regulatory requirements, but also through consumer litigation.

What This Means for Korean Food Exporters

Korean food manufacturers should pay particular attention to these developments.

Many Korean processed foods use compound ingredients, with sub-ingredients that may themselves contain multiple additives such as flavor enhancers, sweeteners, emulsifiers, colors, stabilizers, preservatives, and processing aids.

As a result, a product that appears relatively simple at the finished-product level may have a considerably more complex ingredient profile once every component of its compound ingredients is fully broken down.

This could become increasingly important if U.S. regulators, retailers, certification organizations, or consumers begin placing greater emphasis on whether a food qualifies as ultra-processed.

Korean exporters should therefore consider reviewing their formulations in advance—not only for current FDA labeling compliance, but also from the perspective of ingredient complexity, additive use, clean-label positioning, and potential future Non-UPF standards.

For products heavily dependent on compound ingredients and food additives, early evaluation and, where commercially appropriate, reformulation may become an important part of maintaining competitiveness in the U.S. market.

The regulatory environment surrounding ultra-processed foods is developing quickly. For Korean food companies entering or expanding in the United States, the key will be to recognize that ingredient formulation is no longer simply a technical manufacturing issue. Increasingly, it may affect regulatory compliance, certification eligibility, retail positioning, consumer perception, and litigation risk.