By Berit Dockter MPP, RD, LD, Kellen Vice President
Many people are fascinated with nutrition – what to buy and what to eat to have a healthful lifestyle. Behind every food there is some level of policy or regulation to keep it safe for consumers. Last year proved to be a significantly busy year in food and nutrition policy as we followed many changes in the new Trump Administration. 2025 started with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) making cuts to several U.S. government agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that regulates most of our national food supply. There was direction from President Trump, through a few Executive Orders, to implement a more deregulatory environment. New tariffs increased challenges in the food market as trade became more complicated to navigate in our global supply chain. The U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for secretary and commissioner positions in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and FDA gave us a preview of the administration’s priorities for food and nutrition: ways to prevent chronic disease through better diets, more transparency for consumers on how their food is regulated, and scrutiny over so-called ultra-processed foods (that has yet to be defined).
State Legislation
At the start of last year federal nutrition policy was ramping up and we were anticipating many proposed rules to carry over from the Biden Administration and also see changes and new direction under the current administration. Meanwhile, U.S. state legislators had their own plans for food policy that created significant disruption in 2025 that continues today. As part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, state lawmakers were inspired by HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy to introduce state bills that would impact school meals, food labeling, food additive and/or food dye restrictions, define ultra-processed foods, and/or set up their own state version of the FDA’s generally recognized as safe (GRAS) pre-market food additive review program. Some of the push for state legislation was due to a historical distrust or perceived ineffectiveness of FDA – which could be even more difficult for the agency to overcome given the DOGE cuts.
Many of us anticipated forthcoming state legislative activity of this nature a couple years ago as we saw a pattern starting to develop in California and other states that were passing food-related bills having impacts on food industry. In preparation, coalitions were formed in early 2025 to track and defend against many of these MAHA bills. The main message is to uphold a strong FDA and USDA to keep food policy at the national level versus a patchwork of state policies that are very difficult for manufacturers to follow. Interestingly, we believe the administration took notice to the number of state bills in the food space and beyond that in the summer the Department of Justice sent out a request for information on state laws that would have adverse effects on the economy or interstate commerce; many groups commented with their concerns over the patchwork of state bills impacting food industry and potentially consumer access to certain foods. In 2025, we tracked over 135 bills of this kind in approximately 37 states. Of these, 10 governors signed one or more bills into law. All of the bills are different with different food ingredient restrictions, making it even more challenging for food industry to interpret and navigate their next steps without facing penalties in the state. Two states, Texas and West Virginia, are under litigation due to the nature of restrictions in the new state laws. Tracking state activity continues to be a focus in 2026.
Ultra-Processed Foods
Secretary Kennedy has prioritized defining ultra-processed foods (UPF) and in October, over 19,000 comments were sent to FDA and USDA on their request for information on UPF. We are watching to see when a definition comes out and how it would be used, such as on product labels, and if there would be further comment opportunities given the deregulatory environment we are in. U.S. states are already defining UPFs in proposed and passed legislation, but there is no consistency. Having a national definition could slow the states from creating their own. The World Health Organization (WHO) is in the middle of their process to also define UPF, so it will be interesting to see how many definitions will be out there in a few years and how to follow them.
Food Labeling
At the end of the Biden Administration, FDA published an updated final rule on their “healthy” claim that could voluntarily be used on food packages if it meets certain criteria. However, FDA is still working on what a symbol could look like and this continues to be a priority in the Trump Administration. Similarly, this administration has prioritized publishing their final rule on front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labeling that would be a mandate to most food companies to update their packaging. The FOP proposed rule focused on nutrients to limit including saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar. Both of these new labeling schemes are meant to give consumers an at-a-glance interpretation of the nutrient contents in their food when they make quick purchase decisions.
Food Additive Review
This administration has especially scrutinized food additives, their regulatory review process, and how they are used in so-called UPFs. There have been statements made about the number of food additives used in the U.S. food supply compared to other countries and how the U.S. has significantly more on the market. The actual number of food additives and food dyes has been counted by a few associations to check for accuracy, and when comparing regulations head-to-head, the number in the U.S. is very similar to Europe. In some countries around the world, certain food additives or food dyes are approved but they are not allowed in the U.S. A lot of this misinformation has led to state legislators drafting bills to ban certain food additives or food dyes in their schools or statewide, when really there is no reason to distrust the FDA when they have one of the most rigorous food regulatory systems in the world. Consumers should have confidence their food is safe.
The FDA pre-market food additive review program, GRAS, has specifically been a target of a lot of attention by this administration and Congress. The GRAS program concept began in 1958 and in 1997 the GRAS Notification Program was established. GRAS notifications either go to FDA for data review or there is a self-affirmed path where the company must meet criteria to conclude safety. There is a lot of misinformation on a so-called GRAS “loophole” or calling the program “generally recognized as secret” given the self-affirmed GRAS pathway. Food additive companies have been following the law since it was established, including the criteria for an independent conclusion in the self-affirmed path, so arguably there is no “loophole” if it is how the law was created. This administration is planning to publish a proposed rule in 2026 to reform the GRAS program and we anticipate it will focus on a system with more required notifications. There has been a bill introduced in the Senate on more GRAS transparency and we anticipate major policy changes coming to GRAS that could have significant economic impacts on FDA and food industry.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans
In early January 2026, the long awaited 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) were published by USDA and HHS. The DGA helps set nutrition standards for federal nutrition programs such as school meals and the USDA’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Going back to the first DGA in 1980, most iterations keep the same key messages when they are published every five years with a few small changes as there is updated science. In recent years, the 2020-2025 DGA had the most change with the introduction of life stages and the first iteration to include a birth to 24 months section. This 2025-2030 version had surprisingly more changes that have since been receiving criticism from several organizations. The same core messages have continued: focus on eating fruits and vegetables, limit added sugar, and limit saturated fat. However, among a few concerning areas, this iteration included a section on avoiding “highly processed foods” that mentioned avoiding certain food additives and food dyes. The scientific justification for including this section has raised concerns by several organizations, especially when there is no clear definition of a UPF or “highly processed food.” There has also been criticism over the secretive process conducted over the last year to create these guidelines that seem to have excluded about half of the recommendations put forth in the scientific report published by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). The work of the DGAC has always been very transparent with public meetings and public comment opportunities, which is why significant deviations from the DGAC scientific report in publishing the final guidelines have surprised many in the food and nutrition community. We are watching to see how implementation of these guidelines impacts several food policies and programs over the next few years.
Berit Dockter is a registered dietitian with master’s degree in public policy. She has been at Kellen since 2018 and is a Vice President in the food and nutrition vertical, serving trade association clients in legislative and regulatory affairs.
