• On January 14, 2026, President Donald J. Trump signed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025.  This initiative sought to revise requirements for milk provided by the National School Lunch Program of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to align with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
  • The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans was published on January 7, 2026, and the recommendations included a departure from low-fat and fat-free dairy to emphasis full-fat dairy as part of a balanced diet, as we previously blogged.
  • Notably, the Act amended Section 9(a)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School lunch Act to permit schools to offer 2% milk and whole milk in addition to low-fat and fat-free milk.  This Act supersedes 7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i) which only permitted schools to offer fat-free or low-fat milk options. The Act also allows lactose-free milk as well as nondairy beverages that are “nutritionally equivalent” to fluid milk to be offered, such as fortified plant-based milks.
  • Additionally, the Act exempts milk fat in any fluid milk from being calculated as part of the saturated fat content limit of 10 percent of total calories in a school lunch.
  • That same day, the USDA issued program implementation guidance to schools. 
  • As of now, the Act appears to only affect lunches provided by schools, not breakfasts.  Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on USDA regulations related to the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025.
  • On January 13, 2026, FDA announced that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has updated data requirements for official certificates for imports of FDA-regulated products that contain bovine-, porcine-, or poultry-derived ingredients.
  • CFIA is now requiring the following additional information to be included on an FDA-issued “Certificate to a Foreign Government” (CFG) destined for Canada:
    • Complete name and address of the manufacturer/processor.
    • Complete legal name and physical address of the exporting company.
  • Additional information on the CFIA requirements for CFGs from FDA can be found at can be found at Food Export Library | FDA.
  • Celestial Seasonings, Inc. has been sued (Law360 subscription required) for allegedly falsely advertising its herbal teas as having “All Natural” flavors despite containing citric acid.
  • The complaint targets five specific herbal teas marketed by Celestial Seasonings that are labeled as “Naturally Flavored with Other Natural Flavors” with additional label statements that the company “blends its ‘teas from the finest ingredients with no artificial flavors or colors.’” According to the complaint, Celestial Seasonings also makes several claims on its website related to its ingredients, including “[t]he natural flavors we use are derived from real ingredients and do not contain artificial or synthetic additives.”
  • However, the complaint says that the ingredient list for each of the five teas includes citric acid, which is primarily synthesized using Aspergillus niger, rather than being extracted from fruits and vegetables. The complaint alleges that Celestial Seasonings adds citric acid to its teas as a flavoring agent, rather than as a preservative. Further, according to the plaintiff, because citric acid is listed separately from “natural flavors” in the ingredient list, it is implied to be manufactured, rather than natural, citric acid.
  • Notably, under 21 CFR 101.22(i), a product should bear the characterizing flavor statement “naturally flavored with other natural flavors” where it contains a both characterizing flavor derived from the product whose flavor is simulated and other natural flavor which simulates, resembles, or reinforces the characterizing flavor.
  • Products containing citric acid but labeled as “natural” or containing no artificial ingredients are often targets of similar class action lawsuits, as we have blogged. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor litigation related to food labeling.
  • On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Departments of Health & Human Services and Agriculture released the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, concluding a process that began roughly three years earlier with the first public meeting of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. In December 2024, HHS and USDA announced the availability of the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in the Federal Register and solicited public comments.
  • The Administration eventually put aside the Scientific Report of the Advisory Committee and published a streamlined, 10-page “real food” guide accompanied by appendices. The report introduces an “inverted pyramid” that prioritizes protein, full-fat dairy, vegetables, fruits, and healthy fats, while whole grains sit at the bottom.
  • A document titled Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans was also made available.  It was developed by nutrition scientists and subject matter experts selected through a federal contracting process. 
  • Key Recommendations include:
    • Protein Intake: Recommendations increased from 0.8 g/kg to 1.2–1.6 g/kg of body weight daily, a 50–100% rise, emphasizing protein as central to every meal.
    • Saturated Fat: The limit remains below 10% of daily calories, but the guidelines highlight foods naturally rich in saturated fat, such as red meat and whole milk.
    • Processed Foods: The report features strong advice to avoid highly processed foods defined in the Scientific Foundation document (page 21) as “any food or beverage or engineered food-like item that is made primarily form substances extracted from food (eg refined sugars, grains, starches, or oils) and/or containing industrially manufacturered chemical additives.”
    • Sugars and Non-Nutritive Sweeteners: For the first time, the guidelines group added sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners under a single recommendation that “no amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet,” whereas the 2020-2025 guidelines raised questions about long-term effectiveness for weight management and did not recommend for children under two, but did not classify non-nutritive sweeteners as nutritionally undesirable.
    • Whole Grains: While still included, whole grains are positioned lower in the new “inverted pyramid,” signaling a shift toward prioritizing protein and healthy fats over carbohydrate sources.
    • Dairy: Emphasis on full-fat dairy as part of a balanced diet, a notable departure from prior guidance favoring low-fat or fat-free options.
  • How this overhaul will align with FDA’s “healthy” label rule and proposed front-of-package (FOP) labeling updates remains unclear. The abrupt shift could disrupt timelines and complicate alignment efforts.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue monitoring developments related to the Dietary Guidelines and other FDA health initiatives.
  • As of January 1, 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) final rule, addressing voluntary US-origin label claims for meat, poultry, and egg products, is now in effect.
  • The March 2024 final rule and accompanying guidelines established stricter standards for making the claim that a product is “Made in the USA.”  Under the new rule, a product must be derived only from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the US to use the claim.  For multi-ingredient products, all FSIS-regulated components must meet this standard, and all other ingredients (excluding spices and flavorings) must also be of US origin.
  • As we previously reported, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published updated guidelines in December 2025 that provide additional clarification to the rule in response to public comments submitted to FSIS.
  • A civil forfeiture action filed by the government (Plaintiff) in 2023 to seize kratom products held by Botanic Tonics, LLC came to an end on January 5th when the Court issued a judgment ending the action in response to the Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal (without prejudice). The Plaintiff’s notice indicated that Botanic Tonics had represented that the products in question were expired, and that Plaintiff had therefore determined that “it would not be a prudent use of government resources to sustain the action.”
  • The original action had alleged that seizure was appropriate because the products contained a new dietary ingredient (Kratom) for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury (21 USC 342(f)(1)(B)). The government alleged that there were “serious safety concerns” regarding the effect of kratom. A motion to dismiss the action was denied in December of 2025.
  • The case is United States v. 250,000 filled bottles of liquid product (4:23-cv-00168) and was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
  • A West Virginia federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily block enforcement of the state’s ban on seven synthetic color additives, along with BHA and propylparaben. The judge found that West Virginia’s law “fails to give adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited and lacks sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.”
  • In October 2025, the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) filed a lawsuit challenging West Virginia’s HB 2354, as we previously blogged. The lawsuit alleged that the ban on the color additives has no scientific basis, ignores safety determinations FDA made when granting the respective color additive petitions, and offers no new evidence that brings the safety of the additives into question.
  • IACM brought the lawsuit on three grounds, alleging that the law:
    • Violates the Equal Protection Clause because it singles out manufacturers and users of the named additives without offering a basis for why the additives must be banned;
    • Is a prohibited bill of attainder because, by naming enumerated color additives, it singles out the manufacturers and users of those color additives; and
    • Is unconstitutionally vague because it leaves the door open for arbitrary enforcement because it does not define “poisonous and injurious” and does not prevent other additives from being deemed as such.
  • The judge disagreed that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause or is a bill of attainder but granted the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the law is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the judge, the law does not define the term “poisonous or injurious,” and the word “including” following that term renders the list of color additives nonexclusive. The law does not include criteria to guide the determination of which color additives are considered “poisonous or injurious,” meaning that “other color additives could be included without any notice for why or how they are being deemed ‘poisonous or injurious.’” Thus, the law fails to give adequate notice of prohibited conduct and invites arbitrary enforcement.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor this lawsuit and other developments regarding color additives’ regulatory status.
  • On December 22, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its annual Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Report for Fiscal Year 2023, providing a comprehensive overview of pesticide residue levels in human and animal foods.
  • The report covers testing conducted between October 1, 2022, and September 30, 2023, analyzing samples for 781 different pesticides and selected industrial compounds. FDA also introduced the Pesticide Report Data Dashboard, an interactive tool that allows users to explore tables, figures, and underlying data from the report.
  • Companies that grow, produce, or manufacture food products for sale in the United States must comply with pesticide tolerances (maximum residue levels) set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FDA monitors compliance by testing FDA-regulated foods in interstate commerce. When residues exceed EPA tolerances or appear on foods without an established tolerance, FDA may take regulatory action to protect public health.
  • Key Findings for FY 2023 include:
    • No pesticide residues were detected in 39% of domestic samples and 39.2% of imported samples.
    • 97.2% of domestic samples and 86.5% of imported samples complied with federal regulations.
  • Animal Food Samples:
    • 97% of domestic samples and 97.6% of imported samples were compliant.
    • No residues were detected in 50.5% of domestic samples and 56.1% of imported samples.
  • Overall, the results confirm that US produced foods continue to have a very high compliance rate and imported foods continue to present a higher violation rate than domestic foods. This annual survey is a useful tool and datapoint for industry and may be used in supply chain and Food Safety Plan assessment. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to pesticide residue regulations.
  • Today FDA announced that it has rescheduled an expert panel on food allergies for February 25, 2026. The panel had been previously canceled due to the government shutdown.
  • This announcement comes in the wake of the Agency rescheduling a public meeting on allergen thresholds for February 18-20. When the expert panel was initially scheduled, it was reported that the panel was intended to facilitate discussions on the etiology and best treatment for food allergies as well as current health guidelines.
  • FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods Kyle Diamantas will be among the panelists. Additional panelists will be announced closer to the date. The event will be livestreamed over FDA’s YouTube Channel and registration is only required if attendance is in-person.
  • A federal judge has approved (Law360 subscription required) a $10 million settlement over claims that Nabisco falsely advertised Wheat Thins crackers as containing “100% Whole Grains.”
  • The class action against Nabisco was filed in October 2022, alleging that the crackers are deceptively labeled when they actually contain corn starch, which the plaintiffs characterized as a refined grain ingredient, as we previously blogged. According to the plaintiffs, the inclusion of corn starch in the product is misleading because it is derived from the endosperm of corn only and therefore does not meet the definition of a whole grain, which must include the germ, bran, and endosperm.
  • Nabisco and its parent company Mondelez filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2024 that claimed the plaintiffs “had not proven with evidence in the record that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the ‘100% Whole Grain’ representation.” In the Settlement Agreement, Nabisco and Mondelez maintain that the labels were not false or misleading.
  • In addition to the monetary settlement, Nabisco and Mondelez agreed not to use the unqualified statement “100% Whole Grain” on the eight identified Wheat Thins products.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on litigation related to food labeling and claims.