• On August 26, 2025, The New York City Health Department and the Mayor’s Office of Food Policy announced the release of its updated NYC Food Standards. The updated standards are a part of NYC’s broader Chronic Disease Strategy which targets conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular disease through dietary improvements. The updates standards will take effect on July 1, 2026.
  • The updated standards include:
    • Expanded restrictions on low-and no calorie sweeteners, now applying to all age groups whereas previously it was limited to children under 18;
    • New bans on artificial colors, flour additives, and preservatives; 
    • Elimination of processed meats from all meals served;
    • Increased requirements for whole and minimally processed plant proteins; and
    • Stricter snack guidelines to improve nutritional quality.
  • Specifically, the prohibition applies to aspartame, stevia, sorbitol, FD&C Blue No.1, FD&C Blue No.2, Caramel Color, Citrus Red, Titanium Dioxide, Potassium Bromate, Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), and Propylparaben, among others.
  • NYC’s Food Standards were first introduced in 2008 and are now mandated to be updated every three years. The standards apply to meals served by agencies such as the Department of Education, Health and Hospitals, Department of Correction, and Human Resources Administration among others.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to municipal nutrition standards and changes to public health policy.
  • On August 26, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submitted a proposed collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) related to the notification process for Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) substances. Specifically, the revision incorporates new burden estimates tied to FDA’s 2022 guidance document, Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel.
  • Under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, food additives must receive pre-market approval from FDA. However, substances designated as GRAS by qualified experts are exempt from this requirement. Some companies voluntarily use expert panels (groups of independent scientists) to review their GRAS conclusion.
  • FDA has provided updated burden estimates for the use of such panels across three categories: (1) reporting; (2) recordkeeping; and (3) third-party disclosures. Notably, FDA has reduced its estimate for animal food GRAS submissions from 25 to 12 respondents annually, lowering the associated costs by over 2,200 hours. It also decreased the estimated time required to maintain written GRAS panel policies, from 40 hours to 2 hours per year.
  • The proposed revision may signal FDA’s preparation for broader changes to the GRAS framework. As we’ve previously blogged, in March 2025, HHS directed FDA to explore rulemaking that would eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway, requiring all GRAS determinations to be formally submitted to the Agency.
  • Comments should be submitted via Reginfo.gov, referencing OMB Control Number 0910-0342 and FDA Docket Number FDA-2025-N-0123. The deadline for submission is September 25, 2025.
  • Keller and Heckman would be happy to assist in preparing and submitting any comments on behalf of interested stakeholders.
  • A spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) told NBC news that FoodNet, a collaboration between CDC, FDA, USDA, and 10 state health departments, has reduced its surveillance of foodborne pathogens from 8 pathogens to just 2, Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E-coli (STEC). Campylobacter, Cyclospora, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia are no longer being monitored as of July 1st.
  • Talking points the CDC provided to the Connecticut Public Health Department cited an absence of funding as the reason for the cut.
  • FoodNet is the only federal program monitoring multiple foodborne pathogens and the cuts could make it harder to identify and respond to foodborne illness outbreaks.
  • CDC has not publicly announced the change and the FoodNet webpage has not yet been updated to reflect the change.
  • A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit claiming that several major food companies aggressively market “highly addictive, ultra-processed foods to children.” According to the judge, the plaintiff did not adequately allege that the companies’ products caused him any harm.
  • The lawsuit alleges that ultra-processed foods (UPF) marketed by the named defendants and other companies are harmful because of their high degree of processing, including addition of many food additives. The plaintiff claimed that he was diagnosed with both type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at 16, attributing both to the consumption of UPF. Further, he alleged that the incidence of such diseases and obesity has dramatically increased since the 1980s due to the consumption of UPF, as we previously blogged.
  • However, according to the judge, the plaintiff dedicated his complaint to the science and marketing of UPF, but “when it comes to allegations regarding Plaintiff himself, the complaint is woefully deficient.” The plaintiff did not allege how often he consumed the defendants’ products, in what amounts, or when; he did not allege when he ate the products in relation to receiving his diagnoses or began experiencing symptoms; and he failed to identify what foods or products he consumed, listing over 100 brands manufactured or sold by the defendants without identifying specific products he consumed within these brands. As a result, the defendants did not have sufficient notice of the claims against them. Overall, according to the judge, there are not enough facts to suggest that the companies’ products are what caused the plaintiff’s harm.
  • The judge did state that “the Court is deeply concerned about the practices used to create and market UPFs, and the deleterious effect UPFs have on children and the American diet.” However, the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety due to the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
  • As we blogged earlier this year, FDA is working with USDA and other government agencies to define UPF, which could have a broad impact on regulation, as well as processing and marketing . Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to UPF.
  • On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in coordination with the National Economic Council, issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public input on state laws, regulations, and practices that may significantly and adversely affect the national economy or interstate commerce.
  • The RFI invites comments on the following:
    • Which State laws significantly burden commerce in other States and between States, thus raising costs unnecessarily and harming markets nationwide.
    • Whether the laws identified may be preempted by existing Federal authority and, if so, what authority.
    • Whether there may be Federal legislative or regulatory means for addressing the State laws identified or the burdens they cause.
    • Which Federal agency has the subject-matter expertise to address concerns lawfully within the Federal government’s authority.
  • The RFI is particularly relevant to industries facing a patchwork of state regulations, most notably the food and beverage sector, where over 300 state bills have been introduced this year alone.
  • Comments must be submitted by September 15, 2025, under the Docket No. OLP182 through the Federal rulemaking Portal.
  • Keller and Heckman would be happy to submit comments on behalf of interested stakeholders or assist with drafting comments for submission.
  • On August 6, 2025, Former Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), David Kessler, submitted a citizen petition calling on FDA to limit refined carbohydrates used in industrial food processing to prevent obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and requested the agency take various actions, including revoking the GRAS designations of these ingredients.
  • The petition focuses on 1) refined sweeteners (i.e., corn syrup, corn solids, glucose syrups, dextrose, invert sugar, xylose, maltose, and high fructose corn syrups) and maltodextrin; 2) refined flour and starches subjected to food extrusion technology (i.e., wheat, corn, tapioca, oat and potato flour, and starches that are processed by extraction or similar technologies); and 3) sucrose, refined flours, or starches that are used with emulsifiers (e.g., mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids, DATEM, sodium stearoyl lactylate, polysorbates); dough conditioners and strengtheners (e.g., azodicarbonamide, L-cysteine, calcium peroxide); humectants (e.g., propylene glycol); stabilizers and gums (e.g., carboxymethylcellulose, methylcellulose); or modified starches and fillers (e.g., regelatinized starch, modified food starch, dextrins).
  • The petition makes a dubious distinction in the use of these ingredients, noting “This petition focuses on refined carbohydrates used in industrial food processing … not in home cooking.”
  • The petition claims that refined carbohydrates put people at risk for increased caloric intake, weight gain, fat accumulation in the liver, pancreas, skeletal muscle and heart, and metabolic abnormalities, leading to various chronic diseases.
  • The requested actions in the petition include the following:
    • Stop considering processed refined carbohydrates identified in the petition to be GRAS.
    • Promptly initiate proceedings to revoke any existing GRAS regulation for processed refined carbs used in industrial food processing.
    • Require companies seeking to continue using the ingredients to notify FDA within 12 months of their intent to file a food additive petition, and to file such petition within 24 months.
    • With revocation of GRAS status, announce that the ingredients are legally classified as food additives and that absent a regulation allowing for their safe use, it is illegal to continue using them.
    • Remove the products from commerce unless they are eventually covered by a food additive petition.
    • Work with industry to reduce the use of processed refined carbs as quickly as possible.
  • The petition cites FDA’s approach to partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in 2015, when it revoked their GRAS status, prompting the submission of a food additive petition that was ultimately denied.  However, the same scientific consensus and legal standards with respect to PHO’s have not been achieved here.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor FDA’s review of the Kessler petition and relay any developments.

  • On August 19, FDA announced updates to its List of Select Chemicals in the Food Supply Under FDA Review. The list is part of FDA’s plan to conduct post-market reviews of chemicals in food. Note that the excel spreadsheet on the list includes additional information that is not available on the main page such as the date the review was initiated. (see “Export Excel” button on linked page)
  • The new chemicals officially added to the list are:
    • The antioxidants butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
    • Azodicarbonamide (ADA), approved as a bleaching agent in cereal flour and as a dough conditioner in bread baking
    • Synthetic color additives FD&C Blue No.1, FD&C Blue No. 2, FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, and FD&C Yellow No. 6.
    • Opiate alkaloids on poppy seeds. Earlier this year, FDA requested information on agricultural, production, and supply chain practices which may contribute to the presence of these opiate alkaloids.
  • FDA’s announcement also notes that (1) it will seek data on BHA, BHT, and ADA to facilitate its post-market assessments, (2) it has separated lead as an impurity in food contact substances from lead as an environmental contaminant, and (3) that it is taking steps to expedite its review of chemicals included in previous updates, including phthalates, propylparaben, and titanium dioxide.
  • FDA will hold a virtual public meeting on November 18-20, 2025, to discuss food allergen thresholds and their potential applications. The first day of the meeting will feature presentations and panel discussions from invited stakeholders, followed by listening sessions on the remaining two days.
  • Based on recent scientific developments in food allergen thresholds, FDA is exploring how the thresholds can “improve food safety, enhance labeling practices, and help consumers make more informed choices.” Industry, consumer groups, and healthcare professionals are among the stakeholders who have expressed interest in food allergen thresholds and their applications. FDA is seeking input to determine next steps, establish priorities, and develop food allergen threshold approaches to benefit public health.
  • FDA recently published two guidance documents on food allergens in January 2025, as we previously blogged. These guidance documents provided FDA’s latest thinking on what is considered a “milk,” “egg,” or “tree nut” allergen, as well as FDA’s general approach when evaluating the public health importance of food allergens that are not a “major food allergen.”
  • FDA will provide additional meeting details, registration information, and a public docket for written comments in September 2025.
  • A leaked draft of the White House’s “Making Our Children Healthy Again Strategy,” issued by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission outlines a sweeping federal plan to combat childhood chronic disease. Spearheaded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the report prioritizes reducing ultra-processed foods, chemical exposure, screen time, and reassessing vaccine safety.
  • The initiative builds on President Trump’s Executive Order 14212, which established the MAHA Commission. The Commission’s initial report, released on May 22, attributed rising rates of childhood chronic illness to processed diets, chemical exposure, sedentary lifestyles, chronic stress, and overmedicalization.
  • Key proposals in the latest draft report include:
    • Creating a National Institutes of Health (NIH) MAHA Chronic Disease Task Force and coordinating efforts with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
    • Developing a framework to assess cumulative chemical exposure and establish New Approach Methodologies (NAMs).
    • Studying food and lifestyle interventions through programs at HHS, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and USDA.
    • Expanding NIH’s nutrition research in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USDA, and the newly proposed Administration for a Healthy America (AHA).
    • Utilizing the new FDA-NIH joint nutrition regulatory science program.
  • The report also emphasizes a series of policy reforms, including:
    • Applying new standards to federal nutrition programs, including school lunches.
    • Issuing joint guidelines from HHS and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to limit unhealthy food marketing to children.
    • A major structural change includes reorganizing HHS to create the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) which would lead the federal response to chronic disease.
  • Additionally, the report highlights reforming the GRAS process, stating, “FDA will update regulations to reform the ‘Generally Recognized as Safe’ (GRAS) designation, within the scope of statutory authority, to ensure that all new food additives, meet applicable safety standards with increased transparency.”
  • Public health experts have raised concerns about the report’s potential to erode trust in vaccines and sideline evidence-based medicine. As this is a leaked draft, the final version is expected in the coming weeks.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue monitoring developments related to the MAHA initiative.
  • The “Transparency, Readability, Understandability, Truth, and Helpfulness” (TRUTH) in Labeling Act was introduced last month and would require FDA’s proposed rule regarding front of package (FOP) nutrition labeling (90 FR 5426 (Jan. 16, 2025)) to be finalized within 180 days of the bill’s enactment.
  • The bill would require the final FOP labeling rule to mandate that the principal display panel (PDP) of foods identify foods with high amounts of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat, and that high amounts be designated based on Daily Reference Values (DRVs) for adults, children ages 1-3, and infants through 12 months. The phrase “High in” and a conspicuous exclamation point icon would be required.
  • It would also require that the final rule mandate that the PDP declare the presence of non-nutritive sweeteners and a “factual” statement that such sweeteners are not recommended for children. We note that this point is in fact subject to debate and that FDA’s ability to include such a provision in the final rule, not having appeared in the proposed rule, is questionable. (But Congress could write such a requirement into the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in a way that is self-implementing, without the need for FDA rulemaking.)
  • The bill would also require the establishment of DRVs and percent Daily Values for added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat for infants through 12 months, and updates to these values for children 1-3 years old in alignment with the recommendations of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
  • A similar version of the bill was proposed in December 2023.