> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://thechocolatelife.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # UPF: Chocolate’s Next Regulatory/Certification Nightmare? | #PSC 241 - URL: https://thechocolatelife.com/pinned/upf-chocolates-next-regulatory-certification-nightmare-psc-241/ - Published: 2026-10-29T20:48:28.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-29T20:48:28.000Z - Description: OVERVIEW: Episode 241 of #PodSaveChocolate takes a look at the complex world of ultraprocessed food regulations – and what it means for chocolate makers, chocolatiers, and everyone who loves chocolate. - Author: Clay Gordon - Tags: PodSaveChocolate, Live Stream, #Pinned ### **Timing and Links to Watch & Comment** 🗓️ This stream begins at 10:00 ****MST** (10:00 P****D**T, 11:00 M****D**T, 12:00 C****D**T, 1:00 pm E****D**T) on Friday, October 30th, 2026. Links below to watch LIVE and to view the archived episode. Planogram: Photo by [Cai Fang](https://unsplash.com/@caipod?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/instant-noodle-packages-on-store-shelves-Kjka0KQ0rdo?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) This ****YOUTUBE** link is shareable. [![CTA Image](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2025/11/ytlogo256x256.png)](https://youtube.com/live/VU4cMuZ2moA?ref=thechocolatelife.com) Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode! Subscribe (free!) to the [@PodSaveChocolate YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@podsavechocolate/featured?ref=thechocolatelife.com), like this video, comment, and ****share** this episode to help grow the #PSC community. [Participate/Watch on YouTube ](https://youtube.com/live/VU4cMuZ2moA?ref=thechocolatelife.com) This ****LINKEDIN** link is shareable. [![CTA Image](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2025/05/LinkedInLogo.png)](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/claygordon%5Fpodsavechocolate-lavidacocoa-thechocolatelife-ugcPost-7521671617408598016-mkKv/?utm%5Fsource=share&utm%5Fmedium=member%5Fdesktop&rcm=ACoAAAABaLUB44l0lzyoZ9nf9Lg8nfstgzLqxbg) Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode on LinkedIn. Join my network on LinkedIn to receive notifications and to refer business to each other. [Participate/Watch on LinkedIn ](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/claygordon%5Fpodsavechocolate-lavidacocoa-thechocolatelife-ugcPost-7521671617408598016-mkKv/?utm%5Fsource=share&utm%5Fmedium=member%5Fdesktop&rcm=ACoAAAABaLUB44l0lzyoZ9nf9Lg8nfstgzLqxbg) This ****FACEBOOK** link is shareable [![CTA Image](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2025/05/FacebookLogo.png)](https://www.facebook.com/share/1Fqa5xpPc8/) Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode on ****TheChocolateLife page** on Facebook (for 30 days, then watch the archive on YouTube). Follow [TheChocolateLife on Facebook ](https://fb.me/thechocolatelife?ref=thechocolatelife.com)to receive notifications and catch up on other content. [Participate/Watch on Facebook ](https://www.facebook.com/share/1Fqa5xpPc8/) --- ## **Episode 241** There can be no dispute that global legislative efforts to limit the presence of heavy metals in cacao products have changed the way cacao products (beans, derivatives, finished products) are sourced. One challenge (there are many) with these efforts is that different regulatory regimes set different levels (here in the US, federal limits are different from California’s, which are *much* stricter). The proposed ultraprocessed food standards here in the US face the same challenges – on steroids. And, unlike heavy metals, a certification has sprung up (Non-UPF Verified) to take advantage of the gaps between public perception and regulations that are working their way through state legislatures and the federal government. [Non-UPF Verified – Together we can protect a safe food supply for future generations.![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/icon/cropped-NonUPF_Logos_pink-e1777588632712-270x270-7b286068-3f28-4d07-9263-3ee191d7b7ec.webp)Non-UPF Verified butterfly trademark logo![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/thumbnail/logo_Today_Show-8f245d0d-4ae1-4e27-9dcf-7a40892af8ad.png)](https://nonultraprocessed.org/?ref=thechocolatelife.com) I have no idea why the Non-UPF Verified team has coded their website so that the Today Show logo appears instead of theirs. Oh, well. The nuances are a mind-numbingly complex combinatorial nightmare to sort though and make sense of. So, in this episode we are going to focus on the implications of the ultraprocessed food regulations that are working their way through the California and federal regulatory agencies and the Non-UPF Verified “standard” for chocolate makers and confectioners. ![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2026/10/cai-fang-Kjka0KQ0rdo-unsplash-1280x100.jpg) ### **The TL;DR:** There is no single legal definition of “ultraprocessed.” Here are the ones that matter ***now***. 1. **NOVA Group 4** (Monteiro) is the academic root. It classifies foods by degree and purpose of industrial processing. *It’s a research framework, not law.* 2. **Non-UPF Verified** explicitly declines to write a one-sentence definition. Instead it evaluates two dimensions, ingredient integrity and processing limits. At least 70% of the food (by adjusted weight) must be minimally or moderately processed, and conditionally processed ingredients can’t exceed 30%. It defines “minimally processed” as simple mechanical or physical alteration, and “moderately processed” as “transformation that keeps the food’s fundamental character,” *such as roasting or fermentation.* ![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2026/10/cai-fang-Kjka0KQ0rdo-unsplash-1280x100.jpg) ### **A Timeline** *Already happened* | Date | Event | | ------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Jan 2025 | Non-GMO Project announces Non-UPF Verified | | Jul 2025 | FDA/USDA request for information on a definition | | Oct 8, 2025 | California AB 1264 signed (first statutory definition, schools only) | | Jan 2026 | Non-UPF Verified opens enrollment; first products certified | | Jun 2026 | Healthy Eating Research panel publishes its definition | | Jun 9, 2026 | RFK Jr. says the definition is under review at OMB | | Jul 22, 2026 | Senate HELP advances S. 5026 (Sanders) on a 12–10 vote | | Jul 30, 2026 | Booker–Blumenthal Food Labeling Modernization Act introduced | | Aug 10, 2026 | FDA pulls the planned release; white paper goes to OMB; industry lobbies for delay | | Sep 1, 2026 | Non-UPF Verified Standard v1.3 published | | Sep 28, 2026 | California AB 2244 (state non-UPF seal) signed | | Oct 17, 2026 | University of Chicago cost paper | | Oct 23, 2026 | Expert letter to OMB | *Coming up* | Date | What to watch | | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Any day, or never | OMB clears the white paper. It’s non-binding, and there’s no deadline that forces it out. | | Dec 9, 2026 | Comments due on FDA’s mandatory-GRAS proposal | | Jan 3, 2027 | The 119th Congress ends; S. 5026 and FLMA die unless passed. Any federal UPF labeling bill starts over in 2027. | | Jan 1, 2027 | Texas SB 25 warning-label date (enjoined; Fifth Circuit appeal pending) | | Jan 1, 2028 | BE disclosure changes take effect. Refined GE sugar or lecithin may need a disclosure, which disqualifies a product from Non-UPF Verified. | | Jun 1, 2028 | California must issue rules defining “ultraprocessed food of concern” | | Jun 1, 2029 | California must accredit certifiers; state seal on shelves no earlier than mid-2029 | | Jul 1, 2029 to 2032 | California school phase-out begins, then becomes a full vendor ban | I’m not a lawyer, so take this as an informed read. For at least the next two to three years, the binding “law” on ultraprocessed food in the US will be **state law, *mainly California’s***, plus private contract and trademark rules for seals like Non-UPF Verified. > Preemption only changes that if Congress passes something, *and nothing on the table is likely to pass before this Congress ends on January 3, 2027.* ### **A Regulatory Quick-take** ![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2026/10/Non-UPF-Webinar_Bills.jpg) US Congressional “action.” Source: Non-UPF Verified Project webinar California’s AB 1264 is narrower than every federal-level proposal because it uses a two-part test: **a food must contain a listed additive *and* be high in saturated fat, sodium or added sugar (or contain a non-nutritive sweetener).** The federal proposals use a **one-part test**: one listed ingredient is enough, and the only way out is meeting FDA’s “healthy” definition. > One caveat first: the actual federal white paper is still unreleased, so nobody outside government knows its text. The proposals that can be compared are Sanders’ S. 5026, the Booker–Blumenthal Food Labeling Modernization Act (FLMA), and the Healthy Eating Research (HER) panel definition. The HER definition is the one the October 23 experts’ letter urges OMB to follow. ### Side by side | | **CA AB 1264** | **S. 5026 (Sanders)** | **HER panel** | **FLMA (Booker–Blumenthal)** | | ------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Structure** | Additive **and** a nutrient trigger (or a nonnutritive sweetener) | Any one “industrial ingredient” | Any one marker ingredient | Directs FDA to define “ultraprocessed” and “not ultraprocessed” | | **Ingredient list** | Eight FDA technical-effect classes from 21 CFR 170.3(o) | Roughly the same classes, **plus surface-finishing agents and high-intensity sweeteners**, plus anything the Secretary adds | “Cosmetic additives” (flavors, colors, emulsifiers, thickeners, non-sugar sweeteners) **plus non-culinary ingredients** like high-fructose corn syrup | Left to FDA | | **Natural flavors and colors** | **Carved out**: natural colors are excluded, and so are spices and other natural seasonings and flavorings | No carve-out | Explicitly included (natural *or* artificial) | Left to FDA | | **Nutrient gate** | Yes, with numbers: ≥10% of calories from saturated fat; sodium (mg) ≥ calories; ≥10% of calories from added sugar | None in the UPF definition; separate “High in” warnings, with thresholds the Secretary sets | None | Separate front-of-pack system | | **Exemptions** | Class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods, infant formula | FDA “healthy” foods, infant formula | FDA “healthy” foods, unless they contain non-sugar sweeteners | FDA “healthy” foods and dietary supplements | | **Who can expand it** | CDPH defines the subsets that get restricted, reviewed every five years | HHS Secretary can add ingredients | Panel recommends annual updates to the marker list | FDA | | **Purpose** | School food; now also the basis for AB 2244’s state seal | Mandatory front-of-pack warnings plus limits on ads to kids | Policy guidance (procurement, labels, taxes) | National front-of-pack labeling | The FDA’s list of “technical effects” in 21 CFR 170.3(o), the regulation that defines what job an additive does in a food. CA AB 1264 picks out eight of the roughly 30 categories there. | # | Technical effect | 21 CFR 170.3(o) | AB 1264 carve-out | | - | --------------------------------------- | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | 1 | Surface-active agents | (o)(29) | — | | 2 | Stabilizers and thickeners | (o)(28) | — | | 3 | Propellants, aerating agents, and gases | (o)(25) | — | | 4 | Colors and coloring adjuncts | (o)(4) | Excludes natural color additives | | 5 | Emulsifiers and emulsifier salts | (o)(8) | — | | 6 | Flavoring agents and adjuvants | (o)(12) | Excludes spices and other natural seasonings or flavorings | | 7 | Flavor enhancers | (o)(11) | — | | 8 | Nonnutritive sweeteners | (o)(19) | — | **How they fit together.** A food is a UPF if it contains a substance from this list and either is high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains a nonnutritive sweetener. That means nonnutritive sweeteners count twice: they’re one of the eight additive categories and also an alternative to the fat/sodium/sugar test. So any food with one would qualify on its own. **What got cut.** Earlier drafts also listed surface-finishing agents (o)(30), and at one point OEHHA rather than CDPH was in charge. The enacted list dropped surface-finishing agents. **Where chocolate lands:** - **Lecithin** is an emulsifier, item 5, with no carve-out. Since nearly every chocolate exceeds the saturated-fat and added-sugar thresholds, lecithin alone would make a bar a UPF under California law. - **Synthetic vanillin** is a flavoring agent. Pure vanilla extract arguably falls under the carve-out for natural flavorings. The statute doesn’t say where “natural flavors” on an ingredient list land, and that’s an open question CDPH may have to resolve. - **Glazes** like confectioner’s shellac on panned items were in the dropped surface-finishing category, so they appear to be out of scope. - **Cocoa powder.** In its lobbying, the Consumer Brands Association listed cocoa powder as a possible “color.” That only matters if it’s used for color rather than as a characterizing ingredient, but expect industry to raise edge cases like that. The practical upshot: ***under California’s definition, a two-ingredient bar (cacao and sugar) stays outside the UPF definition, while the same bar plus soy or sunflower lecithin is in.*** *How* **Federal** *preemption applies here* - **Only actual federal laws preempt.** A federal statute or a binding regulation can override state law. A white paper, guidance document, or definition published for research can’t. So the FDA/USDA definition, whenever OMB releases it, can’t displace California’s if it is not written into law. - **Existing food-labeling preemption is narrow.** The 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act blocks states from imposing non-identical rules only in listed areas: nutrition facts, nutrient content claims, standards of identity, ingredient lists and similar. It expressly leaves **safety warnings** alone, which is why Prop 65 survives. Nothing in current federal law mentions “ultraprocessed,” so there’s nothing for California’s laws to conflict with. - **GMO labeling is the one exception.** *The 2016 Bioengineered Food Disclosure law expressly bans state GMO-labeling rules.* A state non-UPF rule that keyed on GMO status would be preempted. California’s doesn’t. - **State laws affecting out-of-state producers are on solid ground.** In *National Pork Producers v. Ross* (2023), the Supreme Court upheld California’s Prop 12 against a Commerce Clause challenge. California can set conditions on what’s sold in California even when producers are elsewhere. - **The real legal vulnerability is free speech, not preemption.** Texas’s ingredient warning labels were blocked as compelled speech. Mandatory federal warnings like those in S. 5026 would face the same First Amendment challenge. A voluntary seal like AB 2244 is far safer. - **Agency rules get less deference now.** Since *Loper Bright* (2024), courts no longer defer to an agency’s reading of an ambiguous statute. Any FDA rule built on a UPF definition will be litigated on the merits. **Four differences that matter** **1\. The nutrient gate.** AB 1264 says an additive alone doesn’t make a food ultraprocessed; the food also has to be nutritionally poor. The federal one-part tests treat the additive itself as the marker and rescues only “healthy” foods. > That’s why AB 1264 covers far less. The University of Chicago paper estimates the HER definition captures 72% of packaged foods. California’s test would catch fewer, though there are no reliable numbers, yet. **2\. Natural flavors.** This is the biggest practical gap. > California excludes natural flavorings from its additive list, while S. 5026 and HER include them. A low-sugar sparkling water with “natural flavor” isn’t ultraprocessed in California but is under the federal-style tests. **3\. Surface-finishing agents.** S. 5026’s list looks like the one in early AB 1264 drafts: it includes surface-finishing agents (glazes and polishes), which California dropped before enactment. > Panned and glazed confections are covered federally but not in California. **4\. Alcohol.** California exempts alcoholic beverages from its definition. S. 5026 doesn’t exclude alcohol from its UPF definition, only from its sugar-sweetened-beverage rule. > California’s opponents used this to argue that a flavored spirit could carry the state’s non-UPF seal while a sweetened yogurt couldn’t. **AB 2244 (Chapter 721, Statutes of 2026; signed September 28, 2026).** *A product can’t be certified if it falls into any of those three AB 1264 categories.* The seal is voluntary and run by third-party certifiers accredited by the California Deaprtment of Public Health (“CDPH”). On top of AB 1264’s definitions it adds: - certifier accreditation and registration - recertification at least every three years - a public list of certified products - shelf-display duties for large grocers - court orders against misuse of the seal ***What this means in practice*** **One definition, two uses.** The same test that decides what can be served in school cafeterias now decides what can carry a state “non-UPF” seal on a grocery store shelf. That was opponents’ main objection. They argued a school-nutrition definition was “a narrow context never intended for the general food supply.” Their example: a flavored spirit could carry the seal (alcohol isn’t “ultraprocessed” under AB 1264), while a low-calorie yogurt sweetened with a non-nutritive sweetener couldn’t. **The seal is stricter than “not ultraprocessed.”** Because “restricted school food” is also excluded, a product with a listed additive can be blocked even if it isn’t high in fat, sodium or sugar, provided CDPH has designated it. In practice, then, a certified product either has no listed additive, or has one in a low-nutrient food CDPH hasn’t restricted. **The seal can’t work until AB 1264’s rules exist.** CDPH must adopt the “of concern” and “restricted school food” regulations by June 1, 2028\. Opponents complained that an earlier draft of AB 2244 required certifiers to be accredited on that very same date, leaving no time between the rules being finalized and products being certified against them. > The final law moved accreditation to June 1, 2029\. Pushing it back a year fixed that problem. **Summary** There is a difference between regulatory standards and voluntary third-party certifications. Some of these differences are being fought in courts (federal and state), which will affect the final standards *as well as implementation/compliance deadlines*. > *Being “Non-UPF Verified” is *not a guarantee* *that your products are in compliance with either state or federal regulations**, according to Erin Auld, the In-house counsel for the Non-GMO Verified and Non-UPF verified projects. ![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2026/10/boston-public-library-J3h_jhnW07o-unsplash_1280x640.jpg) Source: [Boston Public Library](https://unsplash.com/@bostonpubliclibrary?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) / [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-poster-advertising-corn-and-other-foods-from-corn-J3h%5FjhnW07o?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText). ### **What Chocolate Makers and Confectioners NEED to Know** **Chocolate under each** | Bar | AB 1264 | S. 5026 | HER | | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | | Cacao + sugar | Not UPF | Not UPF | Not UPF | | \+ lecithin | UPF | UPF | UPF | | \+ “natural flavor,” no lecithin | **Likely not UPF** (natural flavoring carve-out) | UPF | UPF | | \+ stevia or monk fruit (sugar-free) | UPF | UPF, plus a separate high-intensity-sweetener warning | UPF | | Panned or glazed (shellac or similar) | **Not caught by the glaze alone** | UPF (surface-finishing agent) | Likely UPF | The common thread: chocolate can never use the “healthy” exemption, because it always exceeds FDA’s saturated fat and added sugar limits. Under the federal-style tests, the only route out for chocolate is a clean ingredient list. Under California’s, chocolate already trips the nutrient gate, so the question is only the additives. The cleanest comparative framing: California asks whether a food is both engineered *and* nutritionally poor, while the federal proposals ask only whether it’s engineered. **Chocolate bars** | Bar | AB 1264 status | Seal-eligible under AB 2244? | | ------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | | Cacao + sugar | Not ultraprocessed; no listed additive | Yes | | \+ lecithin | Ultraprocessed (emulsifier, high saturated fat and sugar) | No | | \+ “natural flavor” only | Likely not ultraprocessed (natural flavoring carve-out) | Likely yes, unless CDPH says otherwise | | Sugar-free with stevia | Ultraprocessed (nonnutritive sweetener) | No | A two-ingredient craft bar is the textbook seal candidate. It just can’t carry the seal until certifiers are accredited, which is mid-2029 at the earliest. **Sidebar About Seed Oils** “Seed oil” isn’t a category in any non-UPF definition. Every framework I’ve looked at judges an oil by *how it was made*, not *what plant it came from*, and only Non-UPF Verified actually polices oils. > “Seed oil” is a marketing and advocacy term, not a regulatory one. None of the legal or proposed UPF definitions single out seed oils; the non-UPF Verified standards restricts oils by extraction method. By their logic, a cold-pressed sunflower oil is cleaner than a deodorized cocoa butter. **Under NOVA,** vegetable oils on their own are processed culinary ingredients (Group 2), alongside butter, sugar and salt. Only chemically altered fats, like hydrogenated or interesterified oils, count as ultraprocessing markers. **Under the Healthy Eating Research panel,** canola or sunflower oil is a kitchen ingredient, so it isn’t a marker and doesn’t make a food ultraprocessed. Industrial fats like hydrogenated oils likely would be, though the one-pager doesn’t say so explicitly. **Under California AB 1264,** oils aren’t one of the eight additive types, so they never make a food ultraprocessed. Seed oils are also low in saturated fat, so they don’t help trip the nutrient test either. **Under S. 5026,** oils aren’t on the list of industrial ingredients. **Under Non-UPF Verified,** oils get real scrutiny, sorted by processing method: | How the oil was processed | Classification | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Expeller-pressed, cold-pressed, mechanically pressed | **Permissible** (moderate processing) | | Winterized (chilled and filtered) | **Permissible** (minimal) | | Refined, bleached, deodorized (RBD) | **Conditional**. Refined and conditionally processed oils together can’t exceed 30% of the product. | | Solvent-extracted (hexane) | **Prohibited** | | Hydrogenated (full or partial), chemically or enzymatically interesterified | **Prohibited** | | Cottonseed oil, brominated vegetable oil | **Prohibited by name**, on the banned-ingredient list | In practice, Non-UPF Verified bans most conventional commodity seed oils. Most supermarket soybean, canola and corn oil is hexane-extracted, so it’s out regardless of the plant. The same oil expeller-pressed is fine. > It’s the closest any framework comes to the MAHA seed-oil critique, but it gets there through processing, not species. **For chocolate, this gets interesting:** - **Cocoa butter is botanically a seed fat**, though it’s never included in the “seed oil” lists people argue about. *Natural pressed cocoa butter is permissible.* **Deodorized cocoa butter** is very common in milk and white chocolate, and Non-UPF Verified classes high-heat deodorizing as conditional, so it counts toward the 30% cap. A white chocolate built on deodorized cocoa butter plus refined sugar could hit that cap quickly. - **Lecithin is a seed-oil *byproduct*.** Conventional soy lecithin comes out of hexane extraction, which is the likely problem. Pressed sunflower lecithin likely passes Non-UPF Verified, though it’s still an emulsifier under California’s and the panel’s definitions. - **Compound coatings and cocoa butter equivalents** (shea, illipe, sal, mango kernel) are often refined, fractionated or interesterified. Interesterified or hydrogenated fats are banned outright. Refined ones are conditional. Fractionation isn’t listed, so the Non-GMO Project would classify it case by case. **A Technical Administrator’s reading of** [**v1.3 of the non-UPF Verified standard**](https://nonultraprocessed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/non-upf-verified-standard-v1.3.pdf?ref=thechocolatelife.com)**:** - **Alkalization, conching and tempering are fine.** The standard lists alkalization of cocoa powder, conching and tempering as permissible moderate processes. - **Refined sugar is the real constraint.** Recrystallization of isolated sugars and deodorizing of oils are classed as conditional. That puts refined sugar, and arguably deodorized cocoa butter, inside the 30% conditional cap. A high-sugar milk chocolate likely fails even under the 40% added-sugar limit for confectionery. - **Synthetic vanilla flavors are out.** Synthetic vanillin and ethyl vanillin are on the prohibited list. - **Conventional soy lecithin is likely a problem.** Hexane and solvent-extracted oils are prohibited, and hazardous VOC-based extraction is banned at any stage of ingredient production. Most conventional soy lecithin is a byproduct of hexane extraction. Pressed sunflower lecithin may pass. - **Anything carrying a BE (bioengineered) disclosure is ineligible.** Goods with a voluntary or mandatory disclosure under 7 CFR Part 66 can’t be verified. ![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2026/10/cai-fang-Kjka0KQ0rdo-unsplash-1280x100.jpg) ### **A “Non-UPF Verified” Organizational Quick-take** **Non-UPF Verified** was launched by the Non-GMO Project, which says it has more than 63,000 verified products and $47 billion in annual sales, and it sits under the Food Integrity Collective, a nonprofit initiative. The standard itself is copyrighted by the Non-GMO Project, P.O. Box 5606, Bellingham, WA. **People.** Megan Westgate founded the Non-GMO Project, a 501(c)(3), and is its CEO. The current board is Westgate; Kia Ruiz (environmental and economic resiliency consultant); Tina Owens (Snowehaven Consulting); Josh Lynn (co-founder and CEO of RepresentUs); Mohammad Salehi (Heray Spice); and Ryan Pintado-Vertner (Smoketown). On the standards side, the senior names are Lucy MacLoughlin (Chief Executive of Integrity & Impact), John Poor (Head of Technical Strategy), and Pauline Lauvin (Director of Quality and Program Integration). **Governance.** The board makes governance decisions, and a program team writes the standard and runs the program. Evaluations go to four third-party Technical Administrators: SCS Global Services, FoodChain ID, NSF, and Where Food Comes From. Each one publishes its own fees. **Politics.** The Non-GMO Project opposed AB 2244 and asked Newsom to veto it, citing certification integrity. **The 990 for fiscal year ending June 2025** For the year July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025,filed May 15, 2026. > **Revenue** was $7,061,435 in total. Contributions were $10,526\. Program service revenue was $7,009,193, or 99.3% of the total. All of that program revenue sits on one line, Part VIII line 2a, labeled “Product Verification P\[rogram\]” (business code 561110). There’s no separate royalty or licensing line. The verification fee **is** the licensing income. **Program spending** | Program | Expenses | Revenue | | ------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | | Non-GMO Product Verification Program | $2,914,963 | $7,009,246 | | Non-UPF Product Verification Program (first year) | $933,712 | $0 | | Food Integrity Collective / education | $1,466,786 | $0 | **The “Tax Math”** The fee was $105 for the whole fiscal year (the $115 increase landed a month after year-end). So: - **$7,009,193 ÷ $105 ≈ 66,750 product-fees.** That lines up almost exactly with the 60,000–66,000 product counts the Project publishes. In effect, the 990 is a product census. - **The Project’s take as a share of retail sales:** $7.0M ÷ $40B ≈ **0.018%**, or about 1.75 basis points. Against the website’s $47B, it’s about 1.5 basis points. - **Average retail sales per verified product:** roughly $600,000–$700,000 a year. Against that, $105 is a rounding error. The all-in cost to brands is higher, because Technical Administrator (TA) fees aren’t on the Project’s 990\. My guess is that TA billing system-wide runs 1–3 times the Project’s cut. That would put the total program cost somewhere around $15–30M a year, or 4–7 basis points of retail. (That’s a very rough estimate, not a reported figure.) **The real story is that *the fee is regressive*.** Picture a five-SKU craft maker with $500,000 in revenue: - Assessment: $2,000 - Project fees: 5 × $115 = $575 - Facility review: $550 - One high-risk ingredient: $125 That’s about $3,250 a year, or roughly 0.65% of revenue, which is 35–40 times the industry-average rate. > A big brand with $5 million per SKU pays the same amount. [**A Different Take on Economic Impact**](https://www.fooddive.com/news/ultraprocessed-foods-cost-label-definition-research/872888/?ref=thechocolatelife.com) (Food Dive). --- ### **Future Episodes** 🗒️ ****Tuesday, November 3rd** A chat with Rachel Handler, the author of the NY Magazine article: The Chocolate Conspiracy. --- ### **Episode Hashtags** #cocoa #cacao #cacau #chocolate #chocolat #PodSaveChoc #PSC #LaVidaCocoa #TheChocolateLife --- ### **#PodSaveChocolate and #TheChocolateLifeLIVE Archives** **To read an archived post** and find the links to watch archived episodes, click on one of the bookmark cards below. [Pod Save Chocolate Calendar and ArchiveNews, views, and conversations on topics in cocoa and chocolate streamed live to YouTube, LinkedIn, and Facebook. #PodSaveChocolate!![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/size/w256h256/2020/12/JR_Pods60x60FavIconCutoutButtons.png)The Chocolate LifeClay Gordon![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2023/11/TagImageBanner-PodSaveChocTagFinal_1920x1080-5.jpg)](https://thechocolatelife.com/pod-save-chocolate-calendar-and-archive/) Episodes 201-300 (links to older PSC archives are in the top nav). [#TheChocolateLifeLIVE ArchiveNews, views, and conversations on topics in cocoa and chocolate streamed live to YouTube, LinkedIn, and Facebook.![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/size/w256h256/2020/12/JR_Pods60x60FavIconCutoutButtons.png)The Chocolate LifeClay Gordon![](https://thechocolatelife.com/content/images/2023/03/solen-feyissa-WG7v_wYZW4Q-unsplash-CalendarFeatured1920x1080.jpg)](https://thechocolatelife.com/thechocolatelife-live-calendar/) ⁉️ After a year-long+ experiment, the audio-only versions of PodSaveChocolate episodes have been taken down after an end-of-year review. There were not enough listens to continue uploading episodes and paying for hosting. ## Not a Member? Live The Chocolate Life – Live La Vida Cocoa! Sign up for ****Free** to comment and receive members-only content. Subscribe Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Premium subscriptions available. ---