• On April 21, 2026, the New York Assembly passed the Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act (AB 1556/SB 1239) in a 106-32 vote (mostly along party lines), after the bill passed the Senate unanimously on March 23, 2026.  If signed by Governor Hochul, the law would take effect in one year and would require covered entities to disclose the sale or use of self-affirmed generally recognized as safe (GRAS) ingredients to New York state.  Additionally, the law bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of food that contains Red Dye 3, potassium bromate, or propylparaben. 
  • Covered entities will be required to provide the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets with the following information to demonstrate safety of the GRAS substances used in their products:
    • Signed statements and certifications;
    • The identity, manufacturing methods, specifications, and physical or technical effect of the substance;
    • Dietary exposure;
    • Use limitations where applicable;
    • Evidence of substantial consumption history (if the GRAS status is based on experience based on common use in food);
    • A narrative explaining the basis for the GRAS determination; and
    • A list of generally available data, information, and methods cited.

New York would then list the self-affirmed GRAS ingredients in a public database.

  • As we have continued to report, there have been multiple legislative actions at the state level recently to address food additives and GRAS ingredients.  Most recently, California introduced a bill that would require manufacturers to provide safety evidence for GRAS ingredients it uses.  Similar bills have also been introduced in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 
  • There have also been efforts at the federal level to reform the GRAS system, which has been a major part of Health Secretary Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.  A proposed FDA rule is currently pending White House review and would reportedly make FDA notification of GRAS submissions mandatory, require FDA to maintain a public GRAS inventory, and provide additionally clarification on GRAS designation criteria.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to report on developments related to GRAS substances.
  • We previously blogged about a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit alleging that Michigan’s law banning the sale of eggs that are not produced according to certain animal welfare standards was preempted by the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). We also blogged about a similar DOJ lawsuit in California that was dismissed in March for lack of standing.
  • Michigan filed a motion earlier this month in the Michigan lawsuit seeking dismissal of the DOJ lawsuit, arguing that the government had no standing to pursue the lawsuit and that the Michigan law was not preempted.
  • On the standing issue, Michigan cited the March decision from the California case, as well as other older but similar cases that had been filed against California by other States, and all of which found that the state government plaintiffs had not suffered an injury establishing Article III standing. Preemption provisions like the one in the EPIA regulate the conduct of private actors, and not the government, and if the DOJ was correct that the Michigan law was preempted, it would be void and without effect on the government.
  • With respect to the substantive question of preemption, Michigan argued that there was no preemption because the EPIA preempts different state standards with respect to the condition and quality of eggs. The Michigan law did not regulate the condition or quality of eggs, but rather animal housing standards. The housing condition of the hens could not be detected by examination of the eggs.
  • The Michigan lawsuit case number is 1:26-cv-00246.

  • A Second Circuit panel held that animal welfare groups do not have standing (Law360 subscription required) to sue USDA for the Agency’s revised practices for inspecting pigs at slaughterhouses.
  • The groups—Farm Sanctuary, Animal Equality, and Animal Outlook—challenged a 2019 rule that permits sorting pigs and disposing of “unfit” pigs before they are inspected by a USDA-trained inspector. According to the groups, the rule violates the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
  • A New York federal court previously found that the groups did have standing and found in favor of USDA on the merits. However, on appeal, the Second Circuit determined that the groups’ argument that they will have to divert resources or their missions will be frustrated does not sufficiently allege a concrete injury; thus, the argument is inadequate to establish standing.
  • According to the panel, all of the “alleged injuries to plaintiffs involve voluntary expenditures to advocate against policies embedded in the [rule] or the diversion of resources from other aspects of their missions to rescue pigs they allege will be affected by these new policies.” Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have previously found that these types of injuries are not enough to establish standing; instead, a “plaintiff must show far more than simply a setback to the organizations abstract social interests.”
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor litigation related to USDA regulations.
  • The Ninth Circuit on April 16, 2026, affirmed the dismissal of a proposed false advertising class action against The Brita Products Co., holding that no reasonable consumer would expect a low‑cost water filter to remove or reduce all common tap water contaminants to below laboratory detectable limits. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s expectations regarding the performance of a $15 pitcher were objectively unreasonable as a matter of law.
  • The court emphasized that Brita consistently represents that its products “reduce,” rather than completely “remove,” specified contaminants, and backs those claims with accessible disclosures and performance data. Packaging and linked performance data sheets identify which contaminants are reduced, to what extent, and under which testing standards, reinforcing the limited and qualified nature of the claims.
  • Both the Ninth Circuit and the district court rejected theories based on affirmative misrepresentations and material omissions, finding that Brita had no duty to disclose that its products do not eliminate all contaminants. The courts held that such information would not be material to a reasonable consumer given Brita’s existing disclosures and the implausibility of expecting total contaminant removal from a low‑cost consumer filter.
  • The panel also declined to allow amendment, concluding that no revision could cure the central defect in the complaint.
  • The decision reinforces the strength of the reasonable‑consumer standard and serves as a check on inflated consumer expectations claims. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to consumer protection and advertising litigation.
  • An April 10, 2026, decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court decision and injunction and held that a federal ban on home distillation – even for mere hobbyists – exceeded the scope of the Constitution’s taxation power and the necessary and proper clause. These were the authorities under which the 150-year-old home distillation ban was defended. Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to collect Taxes and clause 18 gives it the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its powers. 
  • 26 U.S.C. § 5178(a)(1)(B) prohibits the production of distilled spirits in the home (among other places) and 26 U.S.C. § 5601(a)(6) provides penalties for distilling on prohibited premises such as the home. Defendants, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, argued that the provisions were enacted to prevent tax evasion through concealment of distilling operations in the home.
  • The Court held that the ban on home distillation exceeded Congress’s taxing authority, which it held to be limited to requiring individuals to pay money and did not permit the government to compel or punish an individual who paid the tax. The Court noted that the home distillation ban not only did not raise revenue, but in fact amounted to an anti-revenue provision because it prevented the production of taxable home distilled spirits.  With respect to the necessary and proper clause, the Court held that it granted Congress no new powers and so did not support the government’s case.
  • FDA has released the results of sampling conducted on domestic and imported honey in 2025 for economically motivated adulteration. The Agency found that 4% of the 102 honey samples tested were adulterated with undeclared added sweeteners.  
  • According to FDA, “honey” commonly refers to “the thick, sweet, syrupy substance that bees make from the nectar of plants or their secretions and store in honeycombs.” Honey becomes adulterated through economic motivation when less expensive sweeteners, such as syrups derived from sugarcane, corn, rice, or sugar beets, are added to honey and not declared.
  • In fiscal year 2025, FDA collected and tested 54 domestic and 48 imported honey samples from either bulk shipments or retail containers labeled as “honey.” The Agency used Stable Carbon Isotope Ratio Analysis to analyze each sample and its protein extract. Of the samples collected, 2 domestic and 2 imported samples—4% of the total—were violative. This percentage is slightly lower than in previous sampling assignments conducted in 2021-22 and 2022-23.
  • For the violative samples, FDA worked with the domestic firms on corrective actions, including voluntary recall, and placed the importing firms on Import Alert 99-47, “Detention Without Physical Examination of Human Food Products That Appear to be Adulterated for Economic Gain.”
  • FDA noted that the results of the sampling show that honey is “susceptible to economically motivated adulteration.” Although adding undeclared sweeteners to honey does not pose a public health risk, FDA reiterated the importance of truthful, non-deceptive food labels. Honey with added sweeteners should be labeled as a “blend” with all components declared in an ingredient statement.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to report on similar FDA sampling activities.
  • FDA’s Human Foods Program has released an updated list of priority research, data, and method needs to support food safety and nutrition oversight. While aimed at researchers, the agenda also offers industry insight into scientific research likely to influence future regulatory decisions for foods, beverages, dietary supplements, and food contact materials.
  • The priorities span nutrition, consumer behavior, microbiological and chemical safety, and risk assessment. FDA highlights needs related to nutrient intake and bioavailability, infant and child nutrition, ultra‑processed foods, consumer understanding of labeling and additives, pathogen detection and prevention, and improved methods for assessing emerging chemical risks.
  • Human behavior research features include consumer interpretation of allergen labeling, perceptions of food chemicals and additives, responses to novel food ingredients, and changes in purchasing or consumption behavior following labeling or policy interventions.
  • From a food safety perspective, the priorities reinforce FDA’s ongoing emphasis on prevention, detection, and root‑cause analysis. Microbiological research needs focus on pathogen prevalence, survival under real‑world processing and retail conditions, effectiveness of sanitation and processing controls, and expanded use of genomic and geospatial tools to support outbreak investigations and environmental monitoring. Similarly, chemical safety priorities emphasize improved detection methods, targeted surveillance of known and emerging hazards, and development of novel testing approaches, such as new approach methodologies (NAMs), to assess safety where traditional data may be limited.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to FDA’s Human Foods Program research priorities and their potential implications for food and dietary supplement stakeholders.
  • The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to require cancer warnings on processed meat products, such as bacon, hot dogs, and deli meats.  PCRM relies on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) classification of these products as “carcinogenic to humans,” due to apparent links between their consumption and colorectal cancer.  We note that the PCRM is an non-governmental organization (NGO) that promotes plant-based nutrition and the WHO classification is based on the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC’s) position, who is known to take a hazard based approach.
  • Specifically, the petition asks USDA to require label warnings on all processed meat and poultry products to that state, “This product might increase the risk of colorectal cancer.”  It also asks USDA to amend labeling regulations so these products can no longer bear the following statements:
    • “This product was prepared from inspected and passed meat and/or poultry;” and
    • “Inspected for wholesomeness by US Department of Agriculture.”
  • USDA regulates and inspects all meat and poultry products sold in the U.S. under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act.  PCRM argues that, when these products pass inspection and are labeled as wholesome and fit for consumers to eat, and those that do not are labeled as “unhealthful” or “unwholesome,” it implies that processed meat and poultry products that pass inspection are “wholesome” and “healthy.” In fact, USDA’s inspection seals and statements are used to demonstrate that the meat and poultry products have been produced consistent with U.S. food safety standards and have undergone federal inspection.
  • The petition is expected to face significant pushback from the meat and poultry industries, especially since the 2025-2023 Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise Americans to increase consumption of proteins, including from red meat and poultry.  USDA has also rejected a similar petition submitted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest in 2016.
  • Yesterday FDA released its fiscal year (FY) 2027 budget request of approximately 7.2 billion, an increase of 3.3% as compared to the FY 2026 enacted budget. FDA’s budget consists of budget authority—money allocated out of the Congressional budget— and user fees. The FY 2027 budget represents a 1.4 decrease with respect to budget authority, but a 7.7% increase with respect to user fees.
  • The Human Foods Program’s (HFP) proposed budget is approximately $1.29 billion, representing an increase of 9.2% from FY 2026 enacted. Only 1.0% of the proposed HFP budget is from user fees. The proposed FDA budget includes $9.0 million to HFP to support transitioning of routine domestic food safety inspections to states. It also includes at least $50 million across FDA programs “to support the Secretary’s vision to remove harmful chemicals from the food supply by addressing unsafe chemical additives used in food.” (The budget provides conflicting numbers, $50 million and $57 million, for this purpose). This allocation includes expansion of the Closer to Zero program, the development of models to predict PFAS levels in food-producing animals, and the exploration of legislative changes “to close the GRAS loophole.”
  • However, no legislative changes specifically relating to self-determined GRAS status are included in the legislative proposal section. FDA’s proposed GRAS rule is currently expected to be published by late spring or early summer.  
  • A legislative proposal under the heading “Ensure FDA Access to Industry Data to Strengthen Food Chemical Safety” would require post-market reassessments of chemicals added to food and submission of certain data and results to FDA. Another legislative proposal would establish a biennial registration user fee for all foreign human and animal food facilities (there is no cost currently associated with food facility registrations, whether foreign or domestic). Other food related legislative proposals encompass expanded oversight of infant formula (including expanded testing and reporting requirements), the required destruction of FDA-regulated imports refused entry and which present a public health concern (with no re-export option), and increased food-related information sharing with state, local, Tribal, and U.S. territorial authorities.
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published its proposed Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) for drinking water, adding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), microplastics, and other hazards.
  • The drinking water CCL lists contaminants that are not currently subject to primary drinking water regulations but are known or anticipated to be in public water systems. Substances added to the list are not subject to any immediate requirements but instead are identified as priority contaminants for potential future regulation.
  • CCL 6 includes four chemical groups—including PFAS and microplastics—75 chemicals, and nine microbes. According to the Federal Register Notice, the PFAS group includes chemicals that contain at least one of three specific structures; listing the PFAS group is intended to signify EPA’s “commitment to prioritizing and building a strong foundation of science on PFAS.”
  • The Notice also states that inclusion of microplastics on the list is a “first step toward defining and better understanding potential public health risk from exposure via drinking water” and identifies four data gaps requiring further research.
  • Both PFAS and microplastics received public nominations for inclusion on CCL 6. EPA is seeking comments on the proposed CCL 6 at regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0946.
  • In addition to EPA’s announcement of CCL 6, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced the Systematic Targeting of MicroPlastics (STOMP) initiative to “create the definitive toolbox for measuring, researching, and affordably removing microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) in the human body. STOMP will focus on developing measurement methods to understand microplastics in the human body and mitigate any harm caused.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor updates related to PFAS and microplastics.