A new report from the Job Creators Network (JCN), which surfaced this Tuesday, suggests that implementing a nationwide food-labeling standard, aligned with the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative, could lead to significant savings for American businesses.
The report, initially reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation, reveals that the costs for companies to adjust food labels in line with 50 different state mandates would be 26 times higher than adopting a unified MAHA standard. By adopting a single national standard, the estimated expense for businesses to modify their food labels would be around $14.8 million. In contrast, complying with various state-specific rules would likely cost around $381 million in total.
“The results from the survey clarify a lot,” stated Dr. Lloyd Corder, who prepared the report as an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh. “Having a mix of state requirements for food labels will create significant financial strain for both large and small companies—costs that will ultimately be passed on to consumers through higher prices.”
He also added, “If keeping costs down is a priority, then a clear, transparent federal MAHA standard is the way forward.”
Interestingly, when asked whether they favored a national food labeling standard or 50 state-specific ones, every single respondent indicated a preference for the national option. JCN’s analysis further points out that a state-based labeling framework would likely lead to an increase in consumer prices.
Alfredo Ortiz, JCN’s CEO, echoed this concern, stating, “While state-specific food labeling regulations come from a good place, they have the potential to negatively impact small businesses disproportionately.”
He elaborated, “Small businesses often operate on very tight budgets and may lack the resources to meet expensive government requirements. This can result in fewer jobs and limited economic growth.”
The survey reveals that 95% of the participating companies periodically update their labels, with 69% doing so less than once a year, compared to 27% who update annually, and 11% who make changes more frequently. Interestingly, all companies indicated that their updates are primarily due to changes in product ingredients, while 94% do so due to new regulations, and 82% for branding or marketing reasons.
Furthermore, 65% of respondents mentioned that updating a label generally takes them four months or more, which feels quite lengthy.
JCN’s report cautions that adopting state-specific labeling regulations could complicate things for U.S. businesses and consumers alike. Ninety-four percent of companies expressed that a state-centric approach would lead to numerous problems, such as compliance issues and complicated packaging designs, with smaller volume runs being less viable for packaging suppliers.
In a podcast appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mentioned that the U.S. would have a federal definition for ultra-processed foods by April, also hinting at upcoming front-of-package labeling standards.
Nonprofit organization Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT) has also been advocating for federal legislation aimed at establishing a singular standard for ingredient transparency in the U.S. The group argues that consumer health should be a national interest, rather than varying by state.
Notably, Texas and Louisiana recently enacted laws mandating warning labels on foods containing specific additives or dyes.
The JCN report is based on data from a survey of 40 companies that oversee more than 5.5 million packaging labels across over 300,000 products. The respondents included grocery stores, wholesale distributors, and packaging manufacturers.
