Legislative Initiatives Mount to Lower Grocery Prices and Ban Surveillance Pricing
This article first appeared in Presence Marketing’s March 2026 newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
As the food and beverage industry moves deeper into 2026, the narrative governing the grocery aisle has shifted from simple supply chain economics to a complex battlefield of technology, privacy, and political maneuvering. While headline inflation has ostensibly cooled from its post-pandemic peaks, the lived reality for the American consumer remains one of relentless sticker shock—a reality that is now precipitating a wave of legislative interventions at both the state and federal levels.
For retailers and manufacturers, the signal from Washington and state capitals is clear: the era of unrestrained pricing strategies may be drawing to a close. A bipartisan recognition of consumer distress is fueling a two-pronged legislative assault. On one flank, lawmakers are targeting the raw costs of goods through tax repeals and affordability agendas. On the other, they are taking aim at the very mechanisms of modern retail—specifically, the emerging use of artificial intelligence and data-driven "surveillance pricing."
The Economic Context: A Slowing Pace, But Rising Pain
To understand what’s driving the current legislative landscape, one must look at the data. According to NPR, grocery prices have surged between 30% and 40% since 2019, fundamentally altering the economics of the American household.
While the pace of increases is technically slowing, the trajectory remains upward. As reported by Progressive Grocer, the January Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed a 0.2% rise in food-at-home prices for the month and a 2.1% increase over the last 12 months.
The pain is not distributed equally across the store. The data shows that five of the six major grocery store food group indexes increased yet again in January:
Cereals and bakery products rose 1.2%
Dairy and related products increased 0.8%
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs inched up 0.2%
Both the nonalcoholic beverages and fruits and vegetables category saw a slight rise of 0.1%
Independent analysis paints an even starker picture. The ConsumerAffairs Datasembly Shopping Cart Index reported a nearly 6% year-over-year climb in January. The cost for their basket of everyday items jumped from $147.71 in January 2025 to $156.43 in January 2026. This $8.72 increase was driven largely by coffee, cereal, and paper products, though staples like eggs and butter offered modest relief.
The Drivers: Tariffs, Labor, and “Sentiment”
Industry analysts are quick to point out that these price hikes are not occurring in a vacuum. A complex web of federal policy decisions is actively influencing shelf prices.
Foremost among these are tariffs. A report from the Council on Foreign Relations highlights that 65% of Americans now view tariffs as a primary driver of unaffordability. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that recent trade policies will likely increase food prices by 1.4% in the short run. This is already visible in the coffee aisle, where prices soared after the Administration imposed tariffs as high as 50% on major importing countries like Brazil—a move Consumer Federation of America likens to a "$200 billion federal sales tax."
Furthermore, labor dynamics linked to immigration enforcement are creating disparities between retail and foodservice. Prices for "food away from home" rose significantly more (4.1%) in 2025 than "food at home" (2.4%), reflecting the higher proportion of labor costs in prepared foods.
However, Jayson Lusk, head of agricultural economics at Purdue University, notes a critical psychological component for the industry to consider. "Consumer anxiety is increasingly driven by food prices and tariffs, not inflation as a general economic concept," Lusk told the Council on Foreign Relations in February. It is this anxiety that politicians are rushing to assuage.
The New Target: “Surveillance Pricing”
Perhaps the most significant development for retail technology vendors and data analysts is the emergence of "surveillance pricing" as a legislative target. Surveillance pricing refers to the practice of using consumer data—purchase history, location, and even biometric data—to set personalized prices or fluctuate prices in real-time based on demand. As retailers invest millions in Electronic Shelf Labels (ESLs) and AI-driven dynamic pricing models to optimize margins, lawmakers are characterizing these tools as predatory.
Leading the charge against this practice is the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2026. Introduced in the Senate on February 12 by Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), the bill explicitly bans corporations from "leveraging new technologies" to raise grocery prices. "The bill aims to prohibit retail food stores from price gouging and engaging in surveillance-based price setting practices," the Senators stated in a press release.
In the House, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) introduced companion legislation, H.R. 4966, which targets "personalized price gouging" where she claims stores use consumers’ sensitive personal information against them to raise prices. “The majority of Americans are stressed about rising grocery prices,” said Rep. Tlaib. “While our neighbors struggle, corporate grocery chains are feeding customer data into algorithms to decide who can be charged more. Companies should not be allowed to use electronic labeling or your personal information to charge you a higher price. We need to ban corporate price gouging and surveillance pricing.”
The Union Push
This legislative push is being bolstered by organized labor. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), representing 1.2 million workers, has launched the "Affordable Groceries and Good Jobs Campaign."
According to Store Brands, this national effort seeks to ban surveillance pricing and target the growth of AI-driven technology in grocery stores. The union argues that these technologies not only harm consumers but potentially devalue retail labor. For the industry, this signals a potential alignment between consumer advocacy groups and labor unions that could create a powerful lobbying block against retail automation.
The “Affordability Agenda” in Congress
Beyond the calls for specific bans on tech-enabled pricing, a broader "Affordability Agenda" is taking shape in the House, championed by the New Democrat Coalition, a group of of 115 House Democrats “who work across the aisle and across the Capitol to advance innovative, inclusive, and forward-looking policies.”
Congresswoman Janelle Bynum (D-OR), in collaboration with the New Democrat Coalition, recently unveiled a roadmap focusing on lowering five key costs, including household essentials like groceries. Similarly, Reps. Nikki Budzinski (D-IL) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) published an opinion piece outlining plans to address these "core costs crushing working Americans."
"The American people need a real plan to make life more affordable," Budzinski and Houlahan wrote, criticizing any dismissals of affordability concerns.
This rhetoric is intensifying along partisan lines. Congresswoman Susie Lee (D-NV) on February 17 released a report utilizing House Budget Committee data to argue that the current administration's economic agenda is directly responsible for higher costs. "Families in Nevada were promised lower prices. Instead, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have delivered higher grocery bills," Lee stated in a press release, pointing specifically to tariffs as a crushing weight on working families.
Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, too, pressed the administration for more action on food costs. In a February 5 statement, Sen. Kelly called on the current administration to work with Congress to lower food prices. “Arizona families cannot continue to bear the cost of rising food prices. I encourage you to take swift action and work with us to lower the price of food for American families. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter,” Kelly said.
State-Level Actions: Bans and Tax Cuts
While Washington debates, state legislatures are moving with speed. The approaches vary wildly depending on the political makeup of the state, presenting a patchwork compliance risk for national chains.
New York: Democrats have introduced two aggressive bills. The Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act specifically targets grocery stores and pharmacies, prohibiting personalized algorithmic pricing and electronic digital shelving labels. A broader bill, the One Fair Price Act, would ban most businesses from using personal data to make prices fluctuate. As reported on February 11 by News10, these bills would empower the New York Attorney General to sue companies and, crucially, allow private citizens to sue when they believe they are victims of price discrimination.
Maryland: Similar momentum is building in Annapolis. Maryland Matters reported on January 20 that HB0148, which would prohibit the use of personal or biometric data in price setting, has already begun committee hearings. The bill, backed by Maryland Governor Wes Moore, targets the "customized prices" enabled by AI, despite objections from retail advocates who argue dynamic pricing can also benefit consumers through personalized discounts.
Tennessee & Missouri: In conservative-leaning states, the legislative weapon of choice is tax relief. In Tennessee, State Rep. Mike Sparks (R-Smyrna) filed the Fresh Food Affordability Act (House Bill 2086), which would eliminate the state sales tax on fresh fruits and vegetables. In Missouri, Senate Bill 1239, sponsored by Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R-Arnold), aims to end both state and local sales tax on food and grocery items. "I am looking to increase affordability for Missourians as prices rise," Coleman told the Columbia Missourian.
The Looming Data Void
Amidst this flurry of activity, a quiet bureaucratic decision may hamper the industry's ability to understand the full scope of the crisis. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reported in February that the USDA is ending its 30-year-old annual survey on food security, beginning with the cancellation of data collection for 2025.
This comes at a time when food insecurity remains stubbornly high—affecting 47.9 million people in 18.3 million U.S. households in 2024—and as SNAP benefits face historic cuts. The CBPP warns that "the absence of this data will make it harder for policymakers, researchers, and the public to measure the harm inflicted" by rising food costs.
Implications for the Industry
For the food and beverage sector, the message is multifaceted. The "tech-forward" future of retail—dynamic pricing, facial recognition, and hyper-personalization—is colliding with a populist backlash. Retailers investing in these technologies must now price in the risk of strict regulatory prohibitions.
Simultaneously, the foundational costs of doing business are shifting. Tariffs are raising input costs, while state-level tax repeals may offer some demand-side relief. As legislative initiatives mount, the industry must prepare for a year where the price on the shelf is determined as much by the statehouse as it is by the supply chain.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.
Non-UPF Verified Sets a New Standard for Ultra-Processed Foods
This article first appeared in the December 2025 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
In mid-November, an international team of 43 scientists released a landmark series of papers in The Lancet concluding that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) now pose a “clear global threat” to public health. Drawing on more than 100 long-term studies, Reuters reported that the series links higher UPF intake to increased risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality.
Coverage in outlets from The Guardian and ABC News to NPR underscores the gravity of the findings. One analysis noted that UPFs are associated with harm to every major organ system in the body, and that these products are rapidly displacing fresh and minimally processed foods worldwide. University of North Carolina nutrition researcher and Lancet series coauthor Barry Popkin told NPR, “We can say now that truly ultra-processed food represents a clear global threat to our health—not only our physical health but also mental health in terms of its impacts on depression.”
At the same time, a growing body of consumer and market research points to a widening trust gap. Many shoppers want to avoid UPFs but say they can’t easily tell what qualifies. A recent New York Times Well column explored why ultra-processed products are so hard to resist and so ubiquitous in modern diets, and highlighted the way industrial formulations can override normal satiety signals and blur the line between “food” and “edible product.”
Against this backdrop, the Non-GMO Project’s new Non-UPF Verified Standard lands at a pivotal moment for CPG brands, retailers, and the entire natural and organic products ecosystem.
From GMOs to UPFs: The Non-GMO Project widens its lens
On Nov. 12, the Non-GMO Project formally announced Version 1.0 of its Non-UPF Verified Standard, described as “the nation’s first comprehensive framework” for defining and verifying foods that are not ultra-processed, and called it the “first Non-UPF Verified standard to address the ultra-processed foods crisis.”
The new certification builds on the Non-GMO Project’s 18-year record of third-party verification and its iconic butterfly seal, now found on more than 63,000 products that represent an estimated $50 billion in annual sales.
“Around the world, more people are waking up to the realization that much of what fills our grocery carts is no longer truly food,” said Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project and Non-UPF Verified, at a recent webinar unveiling the new standard. “Doctors and researchers increasingly describe these products as ‘processed edible substances’—industrial formulations engineered for palatability and shelf life rather than nutrition.”
Westgate is careful to say this is not an attack on processing per se. As she told Food Business News: “Processing itself isn’t the enemy. It’s how and why it’s done that matters. The Non-UPF Standard defines a middle ground where convenience and nourishment can genuinely coexist.”
In practice, that “middle ground” is defined by a rigorous ingredient and processing criteria, which are detailed in the Non-UPF Verified Standard v1.0.
Why ultra-processed foods are under fire
The Lancet series and surrounding news coverage sharpen a distinction many in the natural channel have understood for decades: It’s not just what’s in food, but also how it’s made.
The Guardian’s coverage of the Lancet research noted that more than half of the average diet in the U.S. and U.K. now consists of UPFs, with some low-income and younger populations getting up to 80% of their calories from these products. Citing CDC data, ABC News reported that Americans on average consume over half of their daily calories from UPFs.
The Lancet authors point to several mechanisms by which UPFs drive harm:
Disrupted food structure and “hyper-palatability” that encourage overeating and rapid absorption of refined starches and sugars.
High levels of added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats.
Widespread use of cosmetic additives and ultra-refined ingredients, some of which may alter gut microbiota or expose consumers to contaminants such as phthalates.
Aggressive marketing and product design that exploit biological reward pathways, particularly in children (MAHA Commission).
In the NPR report, Lancet series coauthor Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition and food studies at NYU and author of “Food Politics,” drew a direct line between the science and the need for policy and marketplace action. She noted that some countries, including Chile, have already shown that warning labels, marketing restrictions, and school food reforms can curb UPF intake. “It’s time to take on the industry,” Nestle said. “They’ve got to stop.”
The Lancet series and recent media reporting all make the point: Ultra-processed foods are not just one more dietary risk factor. They are a structural driver of global chronic disease—and the food system will not change without clear definitions, strong incentives, and credible labels.
‘Disconnected’: What consumers are telling us
In October, the Non-GMO Project released a consumer research report titled “Disconnected,” which summarized the attitudes of U.S. shoppers toward UPFs and the modern food system. Some of the topline numbers from “Disconnected” and related research are striking:
A 2024 Non-GMO Project survey found that 85% of Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but most say they feel overwhelmed and unsupported in trying to do so.
Internal research from the Non-GMO Project’s Food Integrity Collective showed that 68% of shoppers actively try to avoid UPFs, and 70% say they need clearer labeling or third-party verification.
New Hope Network reported that 72% of Americans say they are trying to avoid ultra-processed foods, signaling a powerful demand across mainstream and natural retail.
“Disconnected” emphasized that consumers feel the food system is “out of their hands” — dominated by large corporations using engineered ingredients that are disconnected from natural food sources.
In other words, shoppers are ahead of policy. They are already looking for ways to opt out of UPFs, but they lack tools they can trust. That, more than anything, is the market gap the Non-UPF Verified Standard aims to fill.
The architecture of the Non-UPF Verified Standard
The Non-UPF Verified Standard approaches ultra-processing through two essential frameworks: ingredient integrity and formulation, and processing limits.
1. Ingredient integrity and formulation
The standard targets ingredients that are either emblematic of ultra-processed formulations or under scientific scrutiny for metabolic, neurological, or gut impacts. Collectively, these criteria are designed to protect what the standard calls structural integrity, nourishment, and transparency, steering innovation away from “cosmetic” ingredients and toward minimally processed building blocks:
Non-nutritive and bio-transformed sweeteners (such as aspartame, sucralose, stevia extracts, erythritol, and other sugar alcohols) are prohibited as sugar substitutes. Minimally processed stevia leaf preparations may be allowed only at flavor-level use, not as a core sweetener.
Added sugars are capped by category, typically ranging from low single-digit percentages (by dry weight) for soups, sauces, snack foods, and proteins, to stricter limits for beverages and breakfast foods, and up to roughly 20% for desserts and 40% for some confectionery categories.
Gums, thickeners, hydrocolloids, and texturizers produced via industrial degradation or fermentation—such as carrageenan, microcrystalline cellulose, polysorbates, polydextrose, xanthan gum, and maltodextrin— are largely prohibited.
Artificial colors and certain processed oils are excluded.
Natural flavors are confined to use cases where the corresponding “real” ingredient is present and may not be used to mask the absence of whole foods.
2. Processing limits and food structure
Not all processing is equal. The Non-UPF Verified Standard distinguishes among permissible, conditional, and prohibited methods and requires that:
At least 70% of a product’s weight (or dry weight, for certain categories) must be minimally or moderately processed using permissible methods that preserve the food matrix.
Up to 30% may be “conditionally processed”—for example, certain protein isolates or powders—if they meet specific criteria.
High-impact chemical, structural, thermal, or biological modifications are not allowed, including synthetic biology and 3D-printed ingredients.
The intent is to address the very features UPF critics highlight: extensive fractionation and recombination of ingredients, aggressive “engineering” of texture and flavor, and techniques that break down food structure to the point where the body no longer recognizes the substance as food.
As the standard notes, UPF is as much about the degree and purpose of processing as about individual ingredients. The Non-UPF framework is one of the first to operationalize that insight in a way that is auditable at the product level.
The full standard is publicly posted at NonUltraProcessed.org. The Project has signaled that it will update its prohibited ingredient list annually based on emerging science and pilot feedback.
Pilot brands, early adopters and the reformulation challenge
If Non-UPF Verified is to matter, it has to show up on shelves. The early signs are promising.
A pilot cohort of 16 brands—including both mission-driven emerging companies and established names—has been working with the Non-GMO Project and independent technical administrators to test the Non-UPF verification model across nearly every aisle. In addition, New Hope Network reported that 200 brands are already on the wait list, and that the Non-UPF Verified seal is expected to begin appearing on packages in 2026.
In Douglas Brown’s New Hope Network feature, “Non-UPF Verified: Must-Knows for Natural Brands,” Westgate characterized the program as “a movement, not just a mark,” and noted that reformulation will be essential in categories dependent on gums, stabilizers, and added sugars. “We have some cleaning up to do in this industry,” she said. “Reformulations are needed. We need less sugars and gums. It’s going to be a process. But it does seem like brands are really paying attention.”
For many natural and organic manufacturers, the reformulation challenge may feel familiar. Non-GMO and organic standards forced reevaluation of supply chains and ingredient decks; Non-UPF now pushes deeper into how those ingredients are combined and processed.
For mission-driven brands backed by retailers that cater to ingredient-savvy shoppers, the upside could be substantial:
Differentiation in crowded categories such as ready-to-eat meals, plant-based meats, beverages, and snacks, where formulations can drift toward UPF territory even in “natural” sets.
Alignment with policy trends, as HHS, USDA, and FDA explore definitions and potential regulatory approaches to UPFs.
Deeper consumer trust, particularly among shoppers who already use Non-GMO Project and organic seals as navigational tools in the aisle.
For contract manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, however, this is more than a marketing play—it’s a roadmap for where formulation business is likely headed.
Industry response: Caution, criticism, and opportunity
The Non-UPF standard does not exist in a vacuum. Trade groups and conventional food manufacturers are watching closely and some are pushing back.
Food Business News noted that while states such as California have begun to legislate around certain additives and ultra-processed foods, groups like the Grain Foods Foundation argue that some UPFs can fit into healthy dietary patterns, especially when fortified or reformulated.
More broadly, many industry stakeholders have urged federal agencies to avoid definitions that hinge on processing intensity, arguing that frameworks like the NOVA classification system paint with too broad a brush and risk demonizing shelf-stable, affordable foods.
Westgate and her team acknowledge these debates. In FoodNavigator-USA’s report on the standard, she described the NOVA system as foundational but “not built to solve at the product level,” and emphasized that Non-UPF Verified is designed to be auditable, enforceable, and feasible within current food system realities.
At the same time, the Lancet series and global media coverage are shifting the terms of the debate. ABC News quoted experts who warn that global UPF proliferation is a major public health threat and that voluntary, incremental steps are unlikely to be enough.
In that context, voluntary third-party standards such as Non-UPF Verified may serve a dual role as a pre-regulatory signal to policymakers that industry is capable of responding to the science, and as a competitive differentiator for brands and retailers.
What it means for natural & organic CPG leadership
For marketers in the natural and organic products community, the Non-UPF Verified Standard is not just another badge on the front of the pack. It is a concrete response to three converging forces:
Escalating science: The Lancet series, joined by years of epidemiology, clinical research, and meta-analyses, makes a compelling case that UPFs are a unique risk category and that their impact is global.
Consumer anxiety and demand for coherence: Shoppers are hungry for standards that make sense of conflicting information and give them real agency.
Regulatory and reputational risk: As HHS and USDA gather input on UPF definitions, and as advocacy groups press for action, companies that stay tethered to hyper-processed formulations may find themselves on the wrong side of both policy and public opinion.
For natural and organic brands—many of which built their identity on getting ahead of GMO, pesticide, and synthetic additive concerns—Non-UPF Verified is an invitation to lead again. That leadership could take several forms:
Portfolio mapping: Assess where current SKUs fall on the processing spectrum, and identify quick wins for reformulation versus long-term R&D projects.
Supplier engagement: Challenge ingredient partners to develop minimally processed alternatives to emulsifiers, texturizers, and refined oils that violate the Non-UPF criteria.
Retailer collaboration: Work with retailers to pilot Non-UPF assortments, shelf tags, and consumer education in key categories.
Storytelling and transparency: Use packaging, digital channels, PR, and in-store activations to explain how Non-UPF Verified complements existing organic, non-GMO, regenerative and other claims.
A call to action
The publication of the Non-UPF Verified Standard is not the final word on ultra-processed foods; however, it is the opening of a new chapter. Science will continue to evolve. Policymakers will debate definitions and regulatory levers. Industry groups will push back, negotiate, and in some cases innovate.
But the direction is clear. When The Lancet, The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, ABC News, and the natural products trade press all make the same point—that ultra-processed foods are undermining global health and consumer trust—the question for our industry is not whether to respond, but how quickly.
For brands that built their business on “better for you,” Non-UPF Verified offers a unique opportunity to help redefine what “better” means at the level of processing itself, and to align product portfolios with a future in which real food—and the integrity of how it’s made—once again takes center stage.
For more information on the standard, please refer to the full Non-UPF Verified Standard v1.0, the Non-GMO Project’s launch announcement, and the Disconnected research report, available via the Non-UPF team’s Google Drive link.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.