In a report, Yuka and Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic reveal a striking reality about how price shapes food composition in the United States, to the detriment of consumers. Drawing on an analysis of more than 800 food products sold nationwide across 12 of the most common processed food categories, including cereals, bread, and other everyday staples, the study examines how additives, sugar, and sodium vary across price ranges.
The findings are clear: lower-priced products contain significantly more additives, sugar, and salt, exposing a two-tier food system where access to healthier products is largely reserved for those who can afford them. This report combines robust data with policy recommendations to show how food policies shape what ends up on Americans’ plates and what must change to make healthy food the standard, not a privilege.
A joint study by Yuka and Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic.
Cheaper Products Contain More Additives
Across the 12 categories analyzed, the cheapest products contain, on average, 2.6 times more additives than the most expensive ones. Products in the lowest price quartile (25%) contain an average of 6.6 additives per item, whereas those in the highest price quartile (25%) contain an average of 2.7 additives.
The gap is even larger for the most concerning additives, assessed as high-risk on Yuka. The lowest-priced products contain, on average, over 3 times more high-risk additives than the highest-priced ones.
Overall, the results point to the same conclusion: avoiding additives—and especially high-risk additives— isn’t equally affordable. Products without high-risk additives are, on average, 63% more expensive than those with high-risk additives.
Store-bought bread
Store-bought bread is a staple in the U.S., appearing in everyday meals—from breakfast toast and children’s sandwiches to burger buns and quick dinner sides. Supermarkets devote entire aisles to it, offering a wide range of options—white, whole wheat, multigrain, sourdough, brioche, seeded, or “healthy” varieties—making it a typical product where prices vary widely while choice appears abundant.
For this category, we analyzed 61 store-bought bread products from 43 different brands, selected among the most scanned on Yuka. The results show a clear and significant association between price and the number of additives: the cheapest products contain nearly 4 times more additives than the most expensive. Products in the lowest-priced quartile contain an average of 8.7 additives, whereas those in the highest-priced quartile contain an average of 2.3 additives.
When focusing specifically on high-risk additives, the contrast is even more striking: in the lowest-priced quartile, 75% of breads contain at least one high-risk additive, compared with only 12% in the highest-priced quartile. And this gap shows up directly in what consumers pay: store-bought breads without high-risk additives are, on average, 28% more expensive than those with high-risk additives.
Breakfast cereal
Breakfast cereals have recently become the subject of significant U.S.-specific scrutiny, as major brands face criticism for using artificial colors and other additives in products heavily marketed to children, despite cleaner formulations existing abroad. This context makes cereals an illustrative category for examining how price influences families’ purchasing decisions.
We analyzed 83 breakfast cereals from 61 different brands, and the quality gap is evident. The cheapest cereals contain about 2 times more additives than the most expensive quartile, with an average of 5.3 additives per product. The contrast is even stronger for high-risk additives: in the lowest-priced quartile, 61% of breakfast cereals contain at least one high-risk additive, compared with 19% in the highest-priced quartile.
In other words, avoiding high-risk additives costs more: breakfast cereals without high-risk additives are, on average, 65% more expensive than those with high-risk additives.
Pizza
Pizza is deeply embedded in U.S. food culture: one of the most widely eaten comfort foods, shared at family nights, birthday parties, school events, and major sporting events. It has become a default meal choice—one broadly accepted across households—and is consumed regularly, making it a meaningful part of weekly diets.
In this category, our analysis of 70 pizzas shows the same price–quality trend observed in other food staples. The additive load in low-priced pizzas is extremely high: the cheapest products contain 12 additives per product on average (including 3.5 rated high-risk on Yuka), versus only 4.4 additives per product among the most expensive pizzas (including 1.2 rated high-risk). Pizzas without high-risk additives are, on average, 35% more expensive than those with high-risk additives.
Wraps
Wraps capture two core American habits at once: eating on-the-go and the desire to “make it healthier.” They are often marketed as a better-for-you alternative to bread—but that health halo can conceal highly processed formulations designed for softness, flexibility, and long shelf life.
For this category, we analyzed 53 store-bought wraps from 31 different brands. The association between price and the presence of additives is clear: the cheapest wraps contain, on average, 69% more additives than the most expensive ones. The gap is even more pronounced for high-risk additives: the lowest-priced quartile contains more than twice as many high-risk additives as the highest-priced quartile (3.2 versus 1.5 high-risk additives per product).
Recap
Cheaper Products Contain More Sugar
The price–composition gap doesn’t end with additives. Sugar follows the same pattern: lower-priced products are both more additive-heavy and significantly sweeter. This is especially concerning in the U.S., where on average, Americans consume up to three times the sugar intake recommended by the WHO¹. Added sugars are consistently linked to major chronic conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease mortality.²
Across the 12 categories studied, the cheapest products contain, on average, 21% more sugar than the most expensive. Conversely, the least sugary products cost, on average, 23% more than the most sugary.
Breakfast cereal
Breakfast cereals have become a focal point in the U.S. debate on additives, particularly due to the widespread marketing of best-selling products to children; however, sugar constitutes an equally structural concern in this category. In fact, the price gap mirrors what is observed for additives: cereals in the lowest-priced quartile contain, on average, 73% more sugar than those in the highest-priced quartile—26g of sugar per 100g of product, compared with 15g in the most expensive ones.
For families seeking less sweet options, the trade-off is clear: cereals in the lowest-sugar quartile are, on average, twice as expensive as those in the highest-sugar quartile.
Ice cream
Ice cream is a U.S. supermarket institution that became mass-market with the advent of industrial refrigeration, and Americans continue to consume it at exceptionally high levels—about five gallons per person per year.³ The category has also shaped global ice-cream culture through iconic U.S. brands such as Häagen-Dazs and Ben & Jerry’s.
Here too, based on our analysis of 47 products from 28 different brands, price tracks sugar content: ice creams in the lowest-priced quartile contain, on average, 31% more sugar than those in the highest-priced quartile—21g of sugar per 100g, compared with 16g of sugar. Products in the lowest-sugar quartile are, on average, 47% more expensive than those in the highest-sugar quartile.
Crackers
Crackers are typically seen as a savory snack—something to pair with cheese, soups, or eat straight from the box. Yet many supermarket crackers also contain added sugar, which enhances palatability and makes them harder to stop eating.
This category follows the same pattern: across the 95 products from 57 brands we analyzed: the lowest-priced quartile of crackers contains, on average, 28% more sugar than the highest-priced quartile.
Cereal bars
Cereal bars are breakfast cereals repackaged for the U.S. snacking culture—portable, ever-present, and marketed as a convenient default when something quick is needed.
In reality, this everyday format also reveals stark price-based differences in sugar content across the 82 products from 50 brands we analyzed: the cheapest bars contain 40% more sugar than the most expensive, while the least sugary bars are, on average, 44% more expensive than the most sugary ones.
Lower Budgets and Exceedance of Health Recommendations
Using FDA RACCs4 (Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed), we observe a clear affordability-driven nutrition inequity: cheaper products can bring consumers much closer to— or beyond—WHO daily sugar intake recommendations under normal consumption patterns. This is particularly evident for breakfast cereals, cereal bars, and ice creams: one serving of cheaper breakfast cereals can reach 52% of the WHO limit versus 29% for pricier cereals, and cheaper ice creams can reach 80% vs 58% per serving.
Recap
Cheaper Products Contain More Sodium
Of the 12 categories analyzed, 11 had WHO-recommended sodium targets⁵—and all exceeded them. In 7 of these 11 categories, lower-priced products showed greater exceedance of the recommended sodium levels.This has significant public health implications. Excess sodium intake is a well-established contributor to high blood pressure and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and stroke. The WHO estimates that excessive sodium consumption is linked to approximately 1.9 million deaths worldwide each year, while most populations exceed the recommended daily limit of 2 grams of sodium. In the U.S., average intake far surpasses these thresholds—about 1.4 times the federal guideline (2,3 g/day)⁶ and 1.75 times the WHO recommendation⁷.
Mac and Cheese
Mac & cheese is a defining presence in U.S. grocery aisles: bright boxed classics, instant cups, and family-size ready meals designed to be cheap, fast, and shelf-stable. Here, price often reflects how far formulations are pushed—not just with additives and sugar, but with sodium as well.
An analysis of 72 mac & cheese products shows that the cheapest mac & cheese options contain, on average, 348 mg of sodium/100g, versus 310 mg for the most expensive ones. For consumers seeking lower-sodium options, the trade-off is clear: the lowest-sodium products are, on average, 40% more expensive than the highest-sodium ones.
An analysis of 72 mac & cheese products shows that the cheapest mac & cheese options contain, on average, 348 mg of sodium/100g, versus 310 mg for the most expensive ones. For consumers seeking lower-sodium options, the trade-off is clear: the lowest-sodium products are, on average, 40% more expensive than the highest-sodium ones.
Crackers
Crackers illustrate the broader picture: as prices drop, overall quality declines. Cheaper options tend to stack the same compromises — more additives, more sugar, and also more sodium. The cheapest 25% of products contain, on average, 31% more sodium than the most expensive 25%.
Breakfast cereal
While breakfast cereals are most often discussed in terms of sugar, sodium also plays a role—and lower-sodium options tend to be more expensive.
On average, the cheapest products contain 408 mg of sodium/100g, compared with 371 mg/100g in the most expensive ones. Consequently, the 25% lowest-sodium products are, on average, 59% more expensive than the 25% highest-sodium ones.
Recap
Policy Recommendations
The policy recommendations that follow respond to structural weaknesses in the U.S. regulatory system that allow many chemical substances, including potentially harmful substances, to remain widespread in the food supply, particularly in lower-cost and ultra-processed foods. These recommendations pursue two complementary approaches: modernizing food additive oversight through regulatory reform, and reducing exposure to additives and ultra-processed foods through schools, public institutions, and fiscal policy. Together, these recommendations aim to reduce harmful exposures, strengthen accountability across the food system, and better align U.S. food policy with public health goals.
A. Reforming Substances Added to Food Oversight & Safety
The first set of recommendations focus on opportunities to reform the system of oversight for additives and ingredients added to food, in order to improve the general safety standards and transparency for those substances.
1. Reform the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Loophole
A regulatory loophole known as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) allows most ingredients to enter the U.S. market without FDA review. As a result, 99 percent of new food chemicals introduced since 2000 have bypassed federal oversight. Closing this gap requires federal action, which could be taken by either Congress or the FDA.
Congress should amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to eliminate the GRAS exemption and require FDA review for all substances added to food, with a limited carve-out for common household ingredients such as sugar, salt, vinegar and baking soda. New substances should require explicit FDA approval prior to use, and no substance should enter the food supply unless the FDA has reviewed it and affirmatively listed it as permitted.
Congress should require all substances used under the GRAS pathway to undergo renewed review, with continued interim use permitted only for substances already known to FDA, while self-determined (non-notified) GRAS substances would be prohibited unless and until FDA approval is granted.
The FDA could alternatively strengthen its oversight by making GRAS notifications mandatory, thus prohibiting self-certified GRAS determinations and preventing manufacturers that withdraw GRAS notifications from still using the substance. The agency should also re-evaluate all GRAS substances within five years using transparent, publicly available safety data that account for cumulative and long-term exposure, and publish these data in a searchable database.
2. Strengthen FDA Post-Market Review of Food Additives
The FDA currently lacks a systematic post-market safety review process for food additives and GRAS substances. Because GRAS substances may be marketed without prior FDA notification at all, and even substances approved via the additive pathway have often gone decades without re-review, safety concerns are often addressed only after widespread exposure has occurred. Strengthening post-market oversight therefore requires the FDA to implement a robust and predictable review framework.
The FDA should start by reassessing all GRAS substances, and adopting a precautionary approach similar to that employed by the European Food Safety Authority: when credible safety concerns of a substance exist, it should be prohibited in the food supply
In addition, the agency should establish a formal, periodic reassessment cycle for all food additives and GRAS substances, with reviews conducted at least every fifteen years. Substances should be prioritized for a full safety assessment based on clear, risk-based criteria, including public health concerns, regulatory actions taken by peer countries, hazard classifications issued by recognized authorities, emerging scientific evidence of harm, or excessive exposure relative to safety thresholds such as Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels. In parallel, the FDA should implement an annual, risk-based priority review list—independent of the fifteen-year cycle—to ensure timely action when new concerns arise.
Finally, the FDA should set or update limits on individual substances and establish group-level limits for related substances to address cumulative exposure. This approach would better reflect real-world consumption patterns and align U.S. oversight with international best practices.
3. Redefine Food Additives and Use Limits
U.S. law defines a “food additive” so broadly that, combined with the GRAS loophole, it allows substances to be added to food for virtually any purpose, including cosmetic or marketing reasons rather than essential functions. Establishing functional and category-specific limits would reduce exposure to additives.
Congress should amend the definition of “food additive” under the FD&C Act to require that additives serve a legitimate, non-cosmetic function. Limiting additives to defined functional purposes would reduce unnecessary use and prevent inclusion driven solely by marketing or appearance.
Congress should also require manufacturers to disclose all additives and GRAS substances used in their products and justify the function of each. Amending the Food Safety Modernization Act to mandate full disclosure of such substances to FDA would increase transparency, give FDA a clearer view of cumulative additive exposure across the food supply, and support stronger, more targeted regulation.
4. Improve Transparency in Flavoring Ingredients
Another barrier for consumers seeking to avoid risky additives is the lack of transparency around flavorings. Current labeling rules allow merely the use of the terms “natural” or “artificial” flavors, even though they often contain dozens or even hundreds of individual substances. This loophole allows potentially risky substances, including self-GRAS substances, to be hidden from both consumers and regulators.
To address this gap, the FDA should require greater disclosure for flavorings. Manufacturers should list the top three substances by weight in each flavoring directly on ingredient labels and include a QR code linking to a complete list of flavoring ingredients. This approach would improve consumer transparency, enable faster identification of harmful substances, and help public health experts assess cumulative exposure across the food supply, without requiring disclosure of proprietary formulas or ingredient quantities.
5. Require Disclosure of Ingredient Processing and Sources
U.S. food labels allow ingredients to be listed using generic terms without disclosing how they were processed or derived, even though certain production methods can introduce contaminants, including heavy metals. By contrast, the European Union regulates additives as distinct substances based on their method of production, even when derived from the same starting material, in line with Codex Alimentarius principles. Each process-defined additive is assigned a specific name and E-number, along with purity criteria, specifications, and conditions of use.
The FDA should adopt a similar approach and require additives to be identified by production method, using existing Codex E-codes or equivalent names, and by establishing corresponding purity standards and use conditions. Including this information on ingredient labels would increase transparency, empower consumers to make informed choices, and allow regulators to better assess and manage contamination risks in the food supply.
B. Reducing Exposure to High-Risk Additives and Ultra-Processed Foods
Outside of policy changes to improve the oversight of additives and ingredients in food both pre- and post-market, there are a range of policy approaches that the federal government, as well as state or local governments, could take to reduce exposure to UPF or to foods containing high risk additives. The recommendations below present some of the key opportunities.
1. Ban High-Risk Additives in School Foods
Children are uniquely vulnerable to food additives due to their lower body weight, developing metabolism and brains, and disproportionate exposure to processed foods, yet U.S. regulations do not adequately account for these risks.
To address this gap, the FDA should establish and maintain a federal list of additives and additive classes that pose heightened risks to children. This would include, among others, synthetic food dyes associated with behavioral effects and endocrine-disrupting substances such as nitrates, nitrites, and BHA/BHT, with risk assessments accounting for both individual toxicity and cumulative exposure.
This list should be regularly updated as new scientific evidence emerges and serve as the scientific basis for restricting additives in foods consumed by children. Using this list, the USDA should revise the Nutrition Standards for Schools and the Smart Snacks in School rule to prohibit, or at minimum sharply limit, foods containing additives of concern from being eligible for federal reimbursement or sale in schools.
In parallel, state and local governments should use their existing authority to further restrict high-risk additives and ultra-processed foods in schools. While federal agencies can set national standards and guidance, states and localities may adopt stronger nutrition policies tailored to their school systems. Several cities and states have already banned foods containing certain artificial colors, preservatives, or other additives of concern in school meals, and California has enacted legislation to prohibit “ultra-processed foods of concern” in schools based on clear health-risk criteria. These policies demonstrate that stricter school nutrition standards are both feasible and effective, and provide a model for broader adoption nationwide.
2. Improve Public Food Procurement Standards
Beyond school meals, governments can reduce exposure to high-risk additives by reforming food procurement across other institutional settings. The federal government spends billions each year on food for public programs, including military service members, veterans’ hospitals, and senior nutrition programs, yet procurement policies prioritize cost over food quality, favoring products more likely to contain high-risk additives. State and local governments follow similar practices. Updating procurement standards to account for additive risk and food quality would reduce harmful exposures and help shift the market toward healthier food options.
Federal agencies should adopt procurement standards or incentives that limit the purchase of foods containing high-risk additives or that are ultra-processed, and explicitly incorporate additive safety into purchasing decisions. These standards could be implemented through updates to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and via strengthened CDC Food Service Guidelines, which should be adopted more broadly across federal facilities.
State and local governments should likewise update their procurement policies to restrict foods containing high-risk additives or ultra-processed foods when public funds are used. Existing value-based procurement frameworks offer a practical model for prioritizing public health alongside cost and can be adapted to reduce harmful additive exposure in state and local institutions.
3. Implement Tax Incentives for Foods with Fewer Risky Additives
Tax policies, including incentives and excise taxes, can encourage both manufacturers and consumers to shift toward foods with fewer harmful additives. Evidence from tobacco, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverage taxes shows that food demand is highly price-responsive, and fiscal measures can also drive product reformulation.
Governments could use tax credits to lower the cost of foods made without high-risk additives, particularly in widely consumed product categories. Offering targeted tax credits to manufacturers that reformulate products to eliminate harmful additives would help make healthier options more price-competitive and incentivize industry-wide change, while keeping public costs manageable by focusing on high-consumption food categories.
Excise taxes on foods containing high-risk additives or certain ultra-processed foods are another option, though more politically sensitive due to potential price impacts. These taxes can be structured upstream, at the manufacturer or distributor level, to target industry practices rather than consumers directly. However, because excise taxes are often passed on to consumers and may disproportionately affect low-income households, any such policy should be paired with equity safeguards, including directing tax revenues toward programs that improve access to healthy foods and offset cost burdens for marginalized communities.
The detailed Policy Recommendations and supporting references are available in the full report.
- ¹ OMS, 2023. Reducing free sugars intake in adults to reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions (eLENA). https://www.who.int/tools/elena/interventions/free-sugars-adults-ncds
- ² Lee, S.H.; Park, S.; Blanck, H.M. Consumption of Added Sugars by States and Factors Associated with Added Sugars Intake among US Adults in 50 States and the District of Columbia—2010 and 2015. Nutrients 2023, 15, 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020357
- ³ Terán, A., 2023. Ice cream consumption melts from 2000 to 2021. USDA Economic Research Service, Charts of Note. https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=106814 
- ⁴ FDA, 2018. Guidance for Industry: Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (List of Products for Each Product Category) https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-reference-amounts-customarily-consumed-list-products-each-product-category
- ⁵ WHO, 2024. WHO global sodium benchmarks for different food categories, 2nd ed https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240092013
- ⁶ USDA, 2025. Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Make Every Bite Count With the Dietary Guidelines - Ninth Edition https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf
- ⁷ WHO, 2023. World Health Organization Global Report on Sodium Intake Reduction https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/296605a9-820a-41bc-8f28-bf4b1367d530/content
I love this app and I’m impressed by this study. I’m glad you’re using this study to call out the FDA and make it more transparent that our food supply is poisoned!
Great information. How completely unacceptable that the FDA is not focused on the food chain. There should be high standards for the food industry. Americans should not be segregated on the affordability of being able to afford healthy foods. The FDA is focused on prescription medication. There needs to be stringent guidelines and testing on the United States food products. This is crucial because food is what nourishes the body.
This report confirms a long held suspicion of mine. Spend more for quality foods.
Hopefully, this report will make a difference. I love the Yuka app! It has changed the way I shop.
Poison, chemicals, sugars and high fructos chemicals. What is natural flavor? Please help.
I have been relying on the Yuca app for all my shopping needs for about 5 months. It was recommended to me to help with my search for healthier options when shopping. It’s GREAT! Thank you Yuca for making my shopping experience a healthy one!
I personally appreciate this information. Two years ago my allergies were out of control. It took a year to figure out what was causing symptoms. Palm oil is one thing my body can’t handle. It’s in 60-70% of food. Thanks to your app I am much more aware of unhealthy additives, chemicals, and values.
U.S.A. standards need a lot of improvement, and regulation.
Love this app eating healthier. Lost weight so very thankful to Yuka
Thanks so much or this report. It makes me wonder if all these additives are causing health issues.
I use your app every time I shop. The better quality items may cost more, but you eat/need less
Love using the app – find it does take me are longer to shop, but am astounded at the results of scanning labels. Have recommended Yuka to so many friends.
Since starting with Yuka I have been reading labels more and more. I find myself taking longer to shop but it’s okay. Thank you for continuing to share information
Agree!
Thank you for the report and your app. It has been a real eye opener.
Cheaper Products Contain More Additives. That doesn’t make any sense unless they are actually trying to kill us.
Merci, Yuka, ceci confirme ce que nous supposions depuis longtemps. Dépenser un peu plus en vaut toujours la peine pour une meilleure santé! La qualité a un prix. Bonne continuation!
Thank you for this information,
Can you give us the list of the good products and bad products. So we know what to buy?
Use the Yuka app on your phone; it’s free and saves a bundle on health risk when buying stuff off the shelf. I have told numerous people about this app and it works. My health check up this year was great thanks to Yuka finding what I bought at the store and brought home was toxic. The app is a MUST.
Thank you for pointing this out. I have known this for year when attempting to purchase healthier foods for my children and still while trying to eat as healthy as we can afford.
Thank you for publicizing this report. It really makes Secretary Kennedy’s concerns/issues that much more valid. I particularly liked learning about the loopholes- wow!!
Very enlightening article. More reason for using the Yuka app.
And the app gives you alternative choices which are very helpful. I was at local coffee place and asked to scan the whip cream they put on drinks. Once I showed them the toxic cancer causing additives on Yuka; their eyes could not believe what they read.
Send this report to your congress person:) Very sad for the US…
So pleased this is coming out in the open.
Thank you for your involvement and notifying me. I use Yuka more and more and depend on your ratings and research!
Thank you for such science based information and explanation for what needs to be known by consumers.