Something shifted in 2025. You can feel it. It wasn’t just a few headlines; it was a loud, clear signal that the way we feed our families is finally coming under the microscope.
Last year, state legislatures across the United States introduced over 100 bills targeting synthetic dyes, chemical additives, and ultra-processed foods (UPFs). According to Politico, that’s a fivefold increase in just one year. This isn’t just “fringe” talk anymore. It’s bipartisan, it’s accelerating, and – as a dad – it feels like the wake-up call I’ve been waiting for.
Ultra-processed foods are not just “convenient foods.” They are industrial formulations built largely from substances extracted, refined, or synthesized well beyond their original food source. Additives, refined starches, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and cosmetic fillers are combined to optimize shelf life, consistency, and hyper-palatability, often at the expense of nutritional integrity. Just this past year we saw a wave of new state laws – from California’s Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, to Texas’ front-of-package warning requirements, to SF’s UPF lawsuit against Big Food – started drawing legal lines around these products, especially in school meals and on consumer labels.
Between the mounting health data and the momentum from the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, one thing is certain: states aren’t waiting for the federal government to fix our plates anymore.
Why Ultra-Processed Food Laws Aren’t “Bans”
Despite the scary headlines, nobody is trying to ban every box of crackers in the pantry. This movement is more surgical than that. It’s focused on three things that actually matter to parents:
- School Meal Standards: Where the moral case for healthy food is strongest.
- Front-of-Package Warning Labels: Giving us the transparency we need to make actual choices.
- Specific Additives: Cutting out the junk, not the food itself.
By the end of 2025, 17 bills linked to UPF regulation had already passed in states like Wisconsin and New York. This isn’t regulation by a hammer; it’s regulation by pressure. And as any parent knows, enough pressure eventually changes behavior.
California Drew a Line in the Sand for Ultra-processed Foods
California didn’t just pass a law; they gave us a definition. In October 2025, Governor Newsom signed the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act. For the first time, “ultra-processed food” is actually defined in legal code.
The law targets foods high in sodium and sugar, but specifically goes after the industrial “binders”, like the emulsifiers, thickeners, and artificial colors that make food look like food but act like chemicals.
By 2035, these will be out of K-12 school meals entirely. That’s a long runway for manufacturers to change their recipes, but the destination is unmistakable. Because of California’s massive market size, this change is going to ripple across every pantry in America.
Texas’ Front-of-Pack Warning Labels Are Raising the Bar
While California focused on the cafeteria, Texas went straight for the label. Governor Abbott signed Senate Bill 25, requiring front-of-package warnings on foods containing any of 44 specific additives.
The warning is blunt. It essentially says: “This ingredient isn’t recommended for human consumption in Europe, Canada, or the UK.”
Industry groups are already suing, calling it “misleading.” But the precedent is set. Parents want to know why an ingredient deemed “unsafe” in London is considered “fine” in Dallas.
Why Defining “Ultra-Processed” Is So Hard, and So Critical
When you zoom out, you see the real challenge. States are being forced to define food categories in legal language, and that is incredibly hard to do.
“Ultra-processed” isn’t a single ingredient you can just swap out. It’s a spectrum. If we end up with poor or scattered definitions, we get loopholes and “compliance theater” instead of actual health. If we get a standard, global definition, we get real change.
Why We’re Running the UPF Code Hack
At WISEcode, we don’t think static lists or vague “bad food” labels are the answer. We need precision food transparency. That’s why we launched the UPF Code Hack.
We’re not here to argue ideology or bash the food industry. We’re trying to answer a much harder question: Can we define “ultra-processed” using data that is precise enough to actually hold up in court and in the lab?
We’ve brought together scientists and data experts to help improve on our existing UPF Code and scoring system that looks at:
- How ingredients are classified.
- The functional role of additives (is it a preservative or just a “cosmetic” filler?).
- The actual degree of processing.
If these definitions are going to shape the laws that govern what my kids eat, they need to be based on hard science, not just political trends.
What’s Next: From Patchwork Laws to a National Standard
I get why the food industry is worried about a “patchwork” of different state laws. It’s a logistical nightmare.
But as a father, I also see the frustration of parents everywhere. We are tired of opaque labels and engineered foods that seem designed to bypass our kids’ “full” signals. The future is clear: states will keep experimenting, manufacturers will be forced to clean up their acts, and eventually, the federal government will have to step in to create a single, unified standard.
The Real Stakes: Redefining the Food System
We’re past the point of asking if ultra-processed foods are a problem. That’s settled. The real work now is defining exactly what the problem is so we can fix it.
Once these definitions become law, they don’t just change a label. They change the entire food system. Getting that right isn’t just a “tech project”, it’s the work we need to do for our families.