| The Trump administration’s effort to define ultra-processed foods has become a lobbying target for food and agriculture groups, as a larger push to scrutinize ingredients of those foods has reportedly been slowed. The White House is still reviewing a white paper from the Food and Drug Administration that would define what ultra-processed foods actually are, because researchers and experts sometimes view the products differently. While it’s not a binding proposed regulation, it’s a distinction that could affect research, dietary guidelines and future regulation. And the Make America Healthy Again food agenda appears to have kick-started a flurry of lobbying. The term “ultra-processed food” dates back to 2009, when it was first used by a Brazilian epidemiologist. But it didn’t begin appearing in the federal lobbying database until 2023, according to a review of disclosures. That doesn’t mean the food industry hadn’t lobbied on it before then, as lobbying disclosure laws don’t require specificity when organizations disclose what they’re advocating about. But it is notable that more are explicitly disclosing it now, an illustration of how prominent the issue has become. In the first half of 2026, 18 entities — including Chipotle and the American Beverage Association — reported lobbying on ultra-processed foods, or UPFs. Three years ago, just two — Kraft Heinz and the National Automatic Merchandising Association, an industry group for vending machine operators and other “micro-markets” — included the issue on their forms. And since the white paper arrived at the Office of Management and Budget for review last month, there have been 10 meetings at the White House related to the proposal, according to federal records, and two more have been scheduled for next week. More on that below. → The lobbying comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has engaged in a broader campaign against ultra-processed foods and ingredients he says are contributing to chronic disease. A formal response to a key petition may have been slow-walked by the White House, according to exclusive reporting from The Post. My colleague Rachel Roubein in The Washington Post newsroom obtained a draft letter written by Kennedy that said his department had determined that food companies should produce “any detailed safety studies” showing that refined starches and sweeteners commonly found in these foods are generally safe and aren’t contributing to chronic health conditions. The March draft of the letter, which was sent to the White House for review, comes in response to a citizen petition from former FDA commissioner David Kessler seeking a fresh look at the safety of processed, refined carbohydrates, including high-fructose corn syrup, flours and starches. It’s not clear whether the draft is the latest version. “I believe your petition points toward an historic opportunity to significantly improve the quality of our food supply and thus the health of our citizens,” Kennedy wrote in the draft letter, adding, “We want to see any information that proves these ingredients at the quantities they are being added to the food supply should still be generally considered safe.” Food experts tell Rachel that targeting refined carbohydrates is a creative way to attack the issue of ultra-processed foods because it would cover a significant segment of those products. But the food industry has opposed the efforts, saying that efforts to crack down on ultra-processed foods often oversimplifies the issue. → The potential moves to crack down on the ingredients in ultra-processed food could have major implications for manufacturers — which may have to reformulate some products — and two people familiar with the matter told Rachel that the effort has been slow-walked at the White House. Those people spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private details. The Department of Health and Human Services pushed back, saying that any allegation that Kennedy’s food policy agenda has been “stalled or slow-walked is false.” Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the department, told Rachel that Kennedy and President Donald Trump are fully aligned on pushing forward Make America Healthy Again policies focused on food. “HHS is working closely with the White House and our federal partners to ensure these consequential policies are scientifically rigorous, legally durable, and effective,” Hilliard said in a statement. Similarly, White House spokesman Kush Desai said that Make America Healthy Again isn’t “just a campaign slogan” but a “key presidential priority.” Read the full story: “White House has not acted on RFK Jr.’s push for proof ultra-processed foods are safe.” But food industry advocates have been fighting on multiple fronts. The meetings at the White House about the proposed definition of ultra-processed foods, which hasn’t yet been released publicly, includes huddles with the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Plant Based Foods Association, the American Frozen Food Institute and the Grain Chain, a coalition that includes the American Bakers Association. In a response to questions about the meeting, the American Bakers Association replied to me with a comment letter it sent during the Trump administration’s overhaul of the dietary guidelines. The letter questioned whether there was a strong link between a risk of obesity and consumption of ultra-processed foods — breaking from many food experts, who argue these foods encourage overeating and increase the risk of weight gain. The organization stressed that more study is needed. → These meetings are generally a way for outside interests to communicate directly with administration officials and regulators, where regulators can ask questions but rarely tip their hand. Several participants confirmed that remained the case on this topic. In response to an inquiry about a meeting, the National Seafood Association had with officials about the white paper on Friday, the group said it’s “always looking to avoid unintended barriers to consumption of the healthiest animal protein on the planet.” “Understanding just how nutrient-dense seafood is and unfortunately how little of it Americans eat helps turn this into [a] great opportunity to encourage healthy eating,” said a spokesperson for the organization, which didn’t respond to any other questions. The meeting log also includes people who’ve sought to define, label or rein in ultra-processed foods. One of them, Alyssa Moran, the director of policy and research strategy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, served on an expert panel that produced an 85-page report outlining a definition of the term and policy recommendations for the products. “The panel intends for this work to help inform and strengthen [the] ongoing effort” by the federal government to define ultra-processed foods, said the report, which was published in May. It has a buffet of options, depending how far policymakers want to go — from restricting the amount of ultra-processed food options in schools and eliminating tax breaks for advertising of the products to imposing new taxes on ultra-processed foods. Another, Eva Greenthal, who leads food labeling work at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the group is asking regulators to take a “harm-based” strategy to ultra-processed foods — meaning only restricting products with “clear evidence of harm.” The organization is proposing an approach that would define harmful products “based on a combination of nutrient, ingredient and processing criteria, which differs from other approaches that only identify ultra-processed foods based on the presence of industrial ingredients without considering nutrition,” she tells me. → Federal officials had aimed to put out more information around a standard definition of the products in August, three people familiar with the matter told my colleague Rachel — but the release was delayed at the last minute. The strong opposition from food manufacturers illustrates how challenging it is to go up against the industry. The regulatory actions pit the MAHA food agenda against powerful farm and food interests before crucial midterm elections. “The food industry successfully lobbied for its delay,” Greenthal said. “There’s strong support from consumers across the political spectrum for policymakers to take action on the harms of the ultra-processed food supply.” → Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also working on regulations to overhaul the process for food ingredients known as GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe,” including a proposed requirement for food manufacturers to notify the FDA when concluding that a substance added to food is GRAS. There’s also a lingering Biden-era proposed regulation that would require companies to put labels on the front of their packaging that interprets the saturated fat, sodium and added sugar content of a food as “Low,” “Med,” or “High.” It has yet to be finalized. Food companies are also battling some states, including California, that are trying to target food labeling and rein in ultra-processed food consumption. The Trump administration is using a last-minute budget maneuver to try to cancel $810 million in federal spending that Congress already approved, with $615 million tied to programs involving health-related funds. The administration sent the rescissions package to Congress on Friday, just five days before the end of the fiscal year, leaving lawmakers little time to respond before the targeted funding would otherwise expire. The House has departed Washington until after the midterm elections, and the Senate leaves this week. Still, lawmakers have expressed widespread disapproval and called the move illegal. The health angle: The largest chunk, $567 million, comes from HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, which funds services for refugees, unaccompanied minors and other noncitizens. The White House says “the illegal alien invasion is over” due to Trump’s policies, so the money is being rescinded. Why it matters: This could prompt a legal challenge setting up a legal test to determine how much discretion a president has to prevent congressionally approved dollars from being spent. The Government Accountability Office has said that such rescissions are illegal. “Congress holds the power of the purse — approving a budget and appropriating funds,” the office wrote. “Presidents and executive branch agencies are responsible for administering those funds.” → It’s the second time Trump has used the so-called pocket-rescission strategy, following a much larger 2025 effort involving foreign aid. The Supreme Court allowed that effort to proceed while litigation continued, but its action did not definitively resolve the underlying legal question. In an unsigned order that allowed the administration’s rescission, the high court said the order “should not be read as a final determination on the merits” of the case. That puts congressional control of health spending at the center of the fight. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the rescissions came “without warning or consultation,” called the move illegal, and said she will work with colleagues to address it. Her Democratic counterpart on the panel, ranking member Patty Murray (Washington), called it “theft from the American people.” The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut), said that “Congress must remove or constrain OMB’s authorities to manage American taxpayer funding.” Read more from The Post newsroom: “Lawmakers slam Trump’s move to cancel $810M in funding approved by Congress.” “Medicines run short in Iran under US sanctions,” report Bita Ghaffari and Aanu Adeoye at the Financial Times. “Food Safety Finds a Place Among ‘Kitchen-Table’ Political Issues,” Stephanie Armour reports at KFF Health News. “Have We Reached Peak Protein?,” Margot Sanger-Katz and Larry Buchanan explore (in a very visual story) for the New York Times.
This newsletter is published by WP Intelligence, The Washington Post’s subscription service for professionals that provides business, policy and thought leaders with actionable insights. WP Intelligence operates independently from the Washington Post newsroom. Learn more about WP Intelligence. | 
