• On June 25, 2026, the U.S. House Oversight Committee held a hearing on “Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in SNAP,” where House Republicans questioned the alleged influence of the food and beverage industry on the nutritional policies under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
  • SNAP is the federal government’s anti-hunger program that serves more than 40 million low-income Americans in providing electronic benefits that can be used like cash to purchase food. Under SNAP, all foods for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages and hot foods prepared for immediate consumption are eligible under federal law.
  • During the hearing, Committee Chair Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) raised questions about SNAP, stating that while “every SNAP dollar is intended to help feed eligible individuals in need… that’s not where every dollar goes.” House Republicans also argued that SNAP benefits were improperly paid out by states and that the program has experienced different types of fraud such as SNAP card skimming where fraudsters drain the benefits of legitimate program participants or SNAP trafficking where some retailers allow beneficiaries to trade electronic benefits transfer (EBT) cards for cash which is then used to purchase non-allowable goods such as cigarettes or drugs.
  • House Republicans also raised concerns regarding the ability of SNAP recipients to purchase sugar-sweetened drinks through the program, claiming that current SNAP rules are written to encourage consumption of unhealthy processed and packaged foods rather than healthy fresh foods. As we have previously reported, the Trump administration, through the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, has been encouraging states to apply for waivers that allow the restriction of soda purchases with SNAP dollars. So far, 23 states have approved waivers to restrict the purchase of “unhealthy” foods such as soda, candy, and energy drinks, but waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia have been vacated.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to SNAP.
  • On June 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed with prejudice an amended complaint which alleged that eleven producers of “Ultra Processed Foods” (UPFs) had sold Plaintiff UPFs that allegedly were addictive and caused him to develop Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). The initial complaint was dismissed last year for a variety of deficiencies including a failure to explain how consumption of the UPFs led to his diagnoses.
  • The Court’s latest dismissal was principally based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish a causal link between consumption of UPFs and his injury. The Court noted the “unique challenge” in proving causation where a large number of products were consumed over a lengthy time period and found the allegations of increased risk of disease to be insufficient to show that any particular product caused the diseases. Any correlation would be insufficient to demonstrate causation.
  • Relatedly, the Court rejected the application of a theory of joint liability. Application of joint liability is only appropriate where each defendant acted tortiously but it is not possible to determine who was the cause of the alleged harm. Such a theory could not be applied where the cause of the alleged harm is not established. Furthermore, application of the theory also failed because it requires showing that the allegedly harmful products are identical and share the same defective qualities. In contrast, the products at issue were different and the allegations implied “varying quantities and types of harmful ingredients, indicating varying levels of danger.”
  • The case number is 2:25-cv-0037. Keller & Heckman will continue to monitor UPF developments.
  • On July 3, 2026, the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) released its 2026 Regulatory Agenda, listing agencies’ projected regulatory actions and the timelines for them (although the actions and timelines are subject to change).
  • A closely watched item on the Regulatory Agenda is a proposed rule (which we previously blogged about) that would amend FDA’s regulations at 21 CFR parts 170 and 570 to require the submission of a generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notice for the use of a human or animal food substance that is purported to be GRAS under the conditions of its intended use (0910-AJ02). Under the proposed rule, FDA would maintain and update a GRAS notice inventory for all substances subject to the mandatory notification requirement and would clarify the process by which the agency determines that a substance’s use is not GRAS. The proposed rule is tentatively scheduled to be published in December 2026.
  • Other proposed rules include: (1) updating nutrient content claims for added sugars (0910-AJ20); (2) revoking standards of identity for (a) certain canned fruits and vegetables for foods no longer sold in the United States (0910-AJ21); (b) certain bakery products and cereal flours (0910-AJ22); (c) frozen peas and definitions associated with them (0910-AJ23); and (3) establishing conditions under which a specific ingredient would not be excluded from the dietary supplement definition, allowing products containing the ingredient to be lawfully marketed as dietary supplements, assuming they otherwise meet the dietary supplement definition (0910-AI91).
  • The Regulatory Agenda also includes plans to finalize rules to: (1) permit the use of fluid ultrafiltered milk, fluid ultrafiltered nonfat milk, fluid microfiltered milk, and fluid microfiltered nonfat milk in the manufacture of standardized cheeses and related cheese products (0910-AI42); (2) require the display of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labeling for food products (0910-AI80); (3) permit the use of salt substitutes in standardized foods in which salt is a required or optional ingredient (0910-AI72); and (4) reduce the minimum soluble solids requirement for pasteurized orange juice (exclusive of the solids from any added optional sweetening ingredients) (0910-AI98).
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor food related regulations in the Federal Register.
  • On June 22, 2026, U.S. Representative Tony Wied [R-WI] introduced H.R. 9387. If passed this bill would amend 21 U.S.C. 343, the section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which covers misbranded foods. The label for a synthesized butter product or product containing synthesized butter would need to be contain the phrase “lab-created butter” or “contains lab-created butter” immediately before the product name.
  • The bill defines “synthesized butter product” as a product that (i) is “marketed as butter, but utilizes sources of milkfat that are synthesized through non-agricultural processes” and (ii) does not fit the FFDCA’s definition of “butter.” Since 1923, the Congress has defined “butter” as food “which is made exclusively from milk or cream,” and contains at least 80% milk fat by weight.
  • This bill takes a targeted approach by specifically addressing synthetic butter products, but another bill, the Dairy Pride Act, takes a broader approach. Introduced on April 21, 2026, this bill would prevent companies from using standardized dairy product names (e.g., milk, ice cream, etc.) on food products unless the food is, contains as a primary ingredient, or is derived from, lacteal secretion, and is obtained by milking a hooved animal. The bill has not moved past committee since it was introduced.
  • As we have previously blogged, several state legislatures have already taken action to regulate, or even ban, cultured dairy products, with some states targeting all cell-cultured food products.
  • While cell cultured food alternatives are fairly new technologies, butter substitutes have been controversial since the inception of margarine in the late 1800s. To make margarine less appealing to buyers, some states enacted “pink laws” requiring margarine producers to make their margarine pink. These laws were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Collins v. New Hampshire.
  • Keller & Heckman will continue to monitor cell cultured food law developments.
  • Officials in Florida are urging a federal judge to dismiss UPSIDE Food’s (UPSIDE) constitutional challenge to the state’s cultivated meat ban, SB 1084, arguing that the company’s claim is vague and unsubstantiated. UPSIDE claims that the ban was enacted for discriminatory purposes in violation of the Dormant Commer Clause.
  • The company’s complaint cites to public comments made by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Florida Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson that claimed the out-of-state cultivated meat industry threatens Florida’s in-state conventional meat and agricultural industries. UPSIDE argues that these comments demonstrate Florida’s sole intent in enacting the ban was to protect the state’s cattle industry.
  • While the court previously denied UPSIDE’s motion for a preliminary injunction and rejected its claim that the Poultry Products Inspection Act preempted the law, as we reported last year, it allowed the company to proceed with its constitutional challenges to the law.
  • Florida’s SB 1084, the nation’s first state-wide cultivated meat ban, was enacted in May 2024. The law defines cultivated meat as “any meat or food product produced from cultured animal cells” and makes it unlawful for any manufacturer to sell, hold, or distribute cultivated meat in Florida.
  • UPSIDE received federal approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell a cultivated chicken product in 2022.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and relay developments in this case.

  • It has been reported that a coalition of more than 100 groups, including food and agriculture groups, school districts, food service professionals, and nutrition experts wrote a letter to USDA urging it to classify pulse-based pastas as meat alternatives in the Department’s Child Nutrition Programs.   
  • The Child Nutrition Programs includes detailed meal pattern requirements, including minimum amounts and types of foods, that must be offered for reimbursable meals. These vary by program and meal, but many require a meat/meat alternate component, which currently cannot be satisfied by pulse pastas. The coalition argues that pulse-based pastas are packed with nutrients, including protein, and that the change would promote their use and is consistent with the updated dietary guidelines which call for nutrient-dense protein foods to be prioritized.  
  • The Coalition also urged USDA to update the list of creditable ingredients in its Food Buying Guide to include pulse flour products to make them more accessible to participating programs.
  • The coalition consists of various groups including manufacturers and trade associations. In a policy positions paper, pulse trade group USA Pulse has called for legislation supporting the increased use of pulse crops, including foods like soybeans, lentils, and legumes, in school meal programs. USA Pulse also calls for laws that allow pureed pulses and pulse-derived ingredients in federally reimbursable meals.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor food industry developments.

  • On June 29, 2026, FDA’s Human Foods Program (HFP) released its updated 2026 guidance agenda, which includes priority topics for HFP guidance documents. Subjects of particular interest include:
    • Caffeine content labeling in foods and beverages;
    • Questions and answers regarding the use of “healthy” claims;
    • Action levels for cadmium and inorganic arsenic in food for babies and young children;
    • Fruit juice and vegetable juice as color additives in food;
    • Identity and safety information about new dietary ingredients (NDIs); and
    • Multiple guidances to reduce chemical and microbiological hazards in food
  • While guidance documents do not impose legally enforceable requirements, they represent FDA’s current thinking and interpretation on a specific topic that the industry can use as practical guidance.
  • FDA is accepting comments on the proposed topics at www.regulations.gov, using Docket FDA-2022-D-2088. Keller and Heckman will be happy to assist in drafting comments on behalf of interested companies.

  • On June 25, 2026, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) posted a final notice on its rulemaking to revise orange juice grading standards. AMS addressed comments, but stated that it will publish the changes as provided in the interim final notice, released in November, 2025.
  • As we have previously blogged, FDA released a proposed rule to lower the required minimum Brix content in August, 2025. Then-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary spoke about the rule in a video with US Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins. Makary said that “for years, we’ve been wasting beautiful American oranges simply due to an outdated regulation.”
  • Later, on November 18, 2025, USDA issued an interim final rule revising its grading system and deferring to FDA’s standard of identity (SOI) for Grade B pasteurized orange juice. The revisions took effect immediately, but USDA opened a 60-day comment period.
  • In its final notice, USDA addressed each of the five comments it received. Three expressed support for revising the Grade B Brix allowances, and one “was not responsive to the action in the interim final notice.” The fifth comment expressed concern over how revising these standards would impact the taste or nutritional quality of orange juice products. USDA responded that, according to FDA, these changes would have minimal impacts on taste or nutritional value.
  • AMS plans to publish the changes at its grades and standards webpage. Instead of providing a Brix value of its own, AMS will now direct readers to FDA’s standards in 21 C.F.R. 146.140(a).
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor USDA developments.

  • On June 11, 2026, the Delaware House of Representatives passed HS1 for HB394.
  • Under the bill, the Division of Public Health would be required to create and provide signage for retailers selling energy drinks or caffeinated dietary supplements. The signage must state that “energy drinks and caffeinated dietary supplements are not recommended for children, individuals sensitive to caffeine, and individuals who are pregnant or nursing.” Notably, the bill encourages, but does not require, retailers to display the signage next to the energy drinks and caffeinated dietary supplements.
  • This bill is a modification of earlier versions, which would have required retailers to display signage in a publicly visible location next to energy drinks and caffeinated dietary supplements. The original bill had stricter provisions, prohibiting retailers from selling these products to minors and requiring individuals whose age was in question to present a valid form of identification.
  • Delaware’s HS1 for HB394 reflects a broader trend of states adopting legislation that mandates warning signage in retail settings for foods and beverages containing caffeine. For example, in April, Pennsylvania introduced HB2377, which would require retail food facilities to “clearly and conspicuously display a disclosure” for beverages on the menu containing at least 80 milligrams of caffeine per serving.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor state caffeine warning bills.

  • On June 22, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia  vacated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) waivers that USDA had granted to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The waivers had permitted the states to exclude certain foods deemed to be unhealthy such as soft drinks and candy from eligibility for purchase under the SNAP program.
  • SNAP provides federal funds to low-income households and is administered by USDA and state agencies. The uniform eligibility standards are determined at the federal level. All foods for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and hot foods prepared for immediate consumption are eligible under federal law. (See 7 USC 2012(k) definition of “food” and 7 CFR 271.2 definition of “eligible food”).
  • The Court held that USDA’s waivers improperly waived the statutory definition of “food.” Furthermore, the Court held that USDA improperly sidestepped notice requirements by asserting, without support, that the waivers would not have a significant impact on the public.  
  • The ruling only addressed the five state waivers that were challenged by Plaintiffs. However, USDA has granted eighteen similar waivers, and the Court’s reasoning seems equally applicable to them.
  • This holding is a snag for the Make America Healthy Again MAHA movement, which has sought to allow states to restrict “unhealthy items” from purchase with SNAP benefits.
  • Keller & Heckman will continue to monitor USDA developments.