• by Sarah Mahoney , Staff Writer @mahoney_sarah, March 14, 2025

How healthy does America want to be?

Sweeping regulatory changes are coming to the food aisle. Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the “Make America Healthy Again” push is gaining steam -- from pressuring brands to drop artificial dyes to reshaping how low-income families can use SNAP, the $110 billion Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program used by 40 million Americans. And with ingredient bans and budget cuts looming, CPG giants like Kraft Heinz and General Mills are quietly bracing for impact.

Jason Nickerson, principal at global consultancy Kearney, explains what this all means for brands, retailers, and the future of food marketing.

Interview has been edited for length and clarity.

CPG Insider: Kennedy has said that he expects companies to be proactive on these changes and that he’ll act if they don’t. What are the CEOs of food companies thinking about changes to ingredients and SNAP?

Jason Nickerson: “Make America Healthy Again” is both like a regulatory topdown view, but also something a much more significant percentage of people wants to see, including millennials and Gen Z.

What we’re hearing from the administration aligns well with what we’ve heard from CEOs at the recent Consumer Analyst Group of New York conference last month in Orlando, which is that they’re going to be aligning portfolios around this “better for you” idea. That means reducing salt content and increasing whole wheat, for example. These ideas are both consumer-driven and may have some regulatory teeth as well.

CPG Insider: Yes, and that’s been a twist in how people think about politics. Once upon a time, people like Michelle Obama and liberal Democrats championed these changes. What do you see changing with the SNAP program?

Nickerson: The relationship between the USDA, HHS, and the Food & Drug Administration is fascinating.

To the extent that there is alignment between those organizations, there could be momentum around changes, especially reformulations and removing dyes and seed oil. Those all have implications for existing CPG company portfolios. They’re asking themselves how to get ahead of that. How do you preempt what the reformulation changes might be, not just at a food scientist level, but at a marketing, positioning and packaging level?

CPG Insider: While the details aren’t precise yet, Congress seems likely to cut SNAP spending radically, perhaps as much as 20%. Walmart gets about 25% of sales from SNAP spending, and companies like J.M. Smucker, WK Kellogg, Kraft Heinz and Hershey get more than 20% of sales from low-income people.

Nickerson: If we’re suddenly taking 20% out of the overall pie, that’s got real implications for CPG companies and growers. Many of the Inflation Reduction Act changes were around regenerative agriculture subsidies, like incentives for sustainably produced grain. There is strong support from the new head of the USDA to support farmers on that regenerative journey.

CPG Insider: How about changing how people spend their SNAP money? Kennedy, pointing out that 9% of SNAP dollars go to soft drinks, has vowed to stop that. Do you think that’s likely?

Nickerson: I’m skeptical that could happen. There have been as many as 10 or 12 state actions to restrict SNAP use, excluding soft drinks or candy, and none of them have succeeded. It would have huge implications if sweetened or carbonated beverages were taken off the table.

Often, those advocates propose these restrictions in a moral framework. However, there are also practical implications beyond what could be allowed in a SNAP shopping basket, including how that would work at a retail counter. Does a mom-and-pop retailer that accepts electronic benefits have the systems to differentiate when an eligible product comes across the scanner?

CPG Insider: How chaotic might these changes be for food brands?

Nickerson: There will be a significant lead time between enacted dye removals. The red dye No. 3 decision has been coming for years, and companies still have until 2026 to act. There will be a lag. For some of these companies, particularly on the beverage side, changes could be pretty significant -- if they have to change 20% of a portfolio, that’s a big deal. And if restrictions start to expand beyond dyes into manufacturing-process ingredients or seed oils, that 20% could turn to 50% quickly,

CPG Insider: What does this mean for CPG marketing?

Nickerson: Legacy brands have equity, but reformulations are risky. Changes to taste or texture can disrupt consumer preference, opening doors for store brands, which are more agile. We’ve seen brands initially downplay changes, updating packaging quietly before leaning into the "Better for You" pitch.

CPG Insider: People could hate the taste of healthier Oreos or Doritos and revolt?

Nickerson: Yes. On the other hand, there’s room for store brands, already growing at an accelerated rate, to take some liberties. It will be easier for them to make changes than legacy formulations. National brands, even those with strong consumer awareness, have to work harder. Questions like “How can we make this product pop on the shelf?” become more critical.

CPG Insider: Companies famously do not like the government telling them what to do, and chafe under increased regulation. But is there a silver lining?

Nickerson: Yes. It’s accelerating healthy-consumption trends and could spur innovation. Companies have felt pressure from Wall Street to avoid high-risk R&D, but now—with consumers and regulators aligned—innovation is no longer optional. We’ve seen sustained marketing spend, even with cuts to TV. Maybe these changes will finally shift more of that budget into product development.

CPG Insider: What categories do you think will see the most innovation?

Nickerson: Savory and sweet snacks and sweet and carbonated beverages will see the most action. Also, with the Federal Trade Commission now more pro-business, especially around mergers and acquisitions, expect more deals, as CPG companies sharpen their pipelines and portfolios.