Food regulation update February 23: The latest on MAHA and related developments

CHICAGO, February 23, 2026 — IFMA The Food Away from Home Association launched a new benefit for members: A roundup of regulatory developments affecting the food-away-from-home business, including policy changes that are part of the Administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative. The report is compiled and written by Dr. Joy Dubost, a renowned food scientist and registered dietitian with strong knowledge of what’s happening on the regulatory front.

FEDERAL UPDATES 

New Position - Jay Bhattacharya, current NIH director, will now also serve as acting CDC director amid ongoing changes in senior health leadership. The CDC has been without a permanent leader since August when Secretary Kennedy dismissed Susan Monarez. Acting director Jim O'Neill is stepping down after overseeing staff reductions and DOGE-led layoffs. Senate confirmation is required for a permanent CDC director, presenting a challenge ahead of the midterm elections. 

Surgeon General - The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has scheduled a new confirmation hearing for Casey Means, President Donald Trump’s surgeon general nominee, after Means’ original hearing date was postponed last fall due to her being in labor. The new date is February 25th at 10 am EST. Her nomination is controversial to say the least given some of her positions on various nutrition and health topics. The wellness influencer and health-tech entrepreneur does not hold a current medical license.
 

MAHA

America’s Ultra-Processed Food Crisis: A 60 Minutes Investigation – On Sunday, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy and former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. David Kessler appeared on the CBS show 60 Minutes with no new announcements being made. 

Across the United States, concern is mounting over the health impacts of ultra-processed foods—those boxed, plastic-wrapped, ready-to-eat items that dominate grocery store shelves. This issue has united unlikely allies: Dr. David Kessler and HHS Secretary Kennedy. Despite their differences on many public health issues, both are calling attention to a decades-old "regulatory loophole" that has purportedly allowed thousands of untested ingredients into the American food supply.

GRAS

At the heart of the controversy is the “GRAS” designation - “Generally Recognized as Safe” - a 67-year-old legal, regulatory process to review and approve ingredients in the food supply. Under GRAS, food companies can independently determine the safety of ingredients without requiring direct government oversight, provided qualified experts agree on their safety. Kennedy and Kessler argue that this “loophole” of not submitting the safety dossiers to FDA for review before pre-market use has been exploited, allowing between 4,000 to 10,000 ingredients into American foods, compared to just 400 legal ingredients in Europe. Keep in mind these numbers have not been confirmed. The FDA, they say, has no comprehensive record of what’s actually in the food supply, nor a way for consumers to know what is truly safe.

A Public Health Crisis
Kessler warns that the proliferation of ultra-processed foods—energy-dense, highly palatable, and rapidly absorbable—has fundamentally altered American metabolism. The result: a dramatic rise in chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver, heart attacks, and strokes. He draws a parallel to his earlier work exposing the tobacco industry, arguing that the food industry now poses an even greater threat, as ultra-processed foods affect nearly everyone.

The Push for Reform
Recently, Kennedy issued new dietary guidelines advising Americans to avoid highly processed foods for the first time. He describes these foods as “poisoning us,” and is seeking to close the GRAS loophole, pending White House approval. Kessler is pushing for even stronger action, petitioning the FDA to revoke GRAS status for dozens of processed carbohydrates, sweeteners, and starches—such as corn syrup and maltodextrin—unless companies can prove their safety and lack of contribution to obesity. “We will act on David Kessler’s petition,” Kennedy said, referring to the former FDA commissioner’s August 2025 submission. “That loophole was hijacked by the industry, and it was used to add thousands upon thousands of new ingredients into our food supply.”

The Science and the Skepticism
Both men acknowledge the complexity of the issue. Kessler points out that many GRAS ingredients are listed openly on food labels yet are difficult to pronounce and poorly understood by the public. He argues that these ingredients, often derived from industrially processed corn and soy, are rapidly absorbed and disrupt the body’s metabolic balance, leading to overeating and “empty calories” that contribute to cardiometabolic disease.
However, Kennedy’s credibility has been questioned due to his history of vaccine skepticism and changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. Some doctors worry that his stance could undermine public trust, but Kessler insists that, despite their disagreements on vaccines, he supports Kennedy’s efforts to address ultra-processed foods for the sake of public health.

Legal and Industry Pushback
The impact on children has been especially alarming. In December, San Francisco’s city attorney filed a landmark lawsuit against ten manufacturers of ultra-processed foods, alleging they knowingly engineered and marketed addictive, dangerous products while hiding the risks. The Consumer Brands Association, representing the food industry, responded that there is no agreed-upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods and that companies adhere to FDA safety standards.

The Role of Federal Subsidies
Food author Michael Pollan links the ubiquity of ultra-processed foods to longstanding federal farm subsidies, which primarily support corn and soy production. These crops, he notes, are not consumed directly but are processed into ingredients for ultra-processed foods and animal feed. Thus, taxpayers are effectively subsidizing both the production of unhealthy foods and the healthcare costs associated with diet-related diseases.

The Challenge Ahead
Efforts to reform the food system face powerful opposition from industry lobbies and the challenge of ensuring affordable, accessible healthy foods for all Americans, especially those living in “food deserts.” Kennedy emphasizes the administration’s focus on making healthy foods more affordable and accessible, while the Consumer Brands Association defends the GRAS process as essential for innovation. With regards to Kessler’s petition Mark Hartman, Director of FDA’s Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation responded in a letter last week stating, “We have not reached a complete final decision on your petition. However, be advised your petition has been under continuous review since submission and we intend to have a more fulsome response soon.” However, it is unclear at this point how FDA will act or respond. What is interesting to note is that Kennedy stated, “I’m not saying that we’re going to regulate ultra-processed foods. Our job is to make sure that everybody understands what they’re getting, to have an informed public.” Does this mean we can expect more advertisements similar to the current Mike Tyson ad as well as voluntary pressure on the industry to respond versus any specific regulation? This seems to run counter to the 2026 FDA regulatory agenda. Perhaps FDA will only define UPF but not regulate or restrict their use.

A Call for Accountability
Kessler believes that, just as tobacco executives were brought before Congress, food industry leaders should be held accountable for the consequences of their products. He calls for a fundamental shift in how the country views ultra-processed foods, urging both industry and government to take responsibility for the nation’s health. After the interview HHS spokesperson told Politico, “FDA will update regulations to reform the GRAS designation, within the scope of statutory authority, by closing the ‘GRAS loophole,’ implementing a mandatory GRAS notification program, and increasing consumer transparency with respect to substances found in our nation’s food supply.”

The full interview is available here.

MAHA Movie – On Tuesday, the 24th MAHA Action will be releasing a MAHA focused movie that has 16 chapters fitting into five segments including the following:

Get a preview here. As part of the buildup for the movie a “shopping guide” has been released to MAHA Action enthusiasts and followers.

 

STATES

Courts Stall State-Level Food Additive Crackdowns - State-led efforts to impose sweeping new restrictions on food additives are facing mounting legal resistance, underscoring the growing tension between public health ambitions and constitutional limits on state authority.

On Thursday, industry groups secured a significant legal victory when a federal judge blocked a new law in Texas that would have required warning labels on foods containing a broad list of additives. The court found the measure was likely unconstitutional, siding with plaintiffs who argued the mandate would compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and create an undue burden on interstate commerce.

The Texas law was part of a broader movement among states seeking to increase transparency around ingredients such as preservatives, emulsifiers, and certain colorants that have drawn scrutiny in recent years. Supporters framed the measure as a consumer right-to-know initiative, but opponents — including food manufacturers and trade associations — warned it would create a patchwork of state-specific labeling rules, complicating national distribution and potentially conflicting with federal regulatory frameworks.

Meanwhile, similar efforts are encountering turbulence elsewhere. In West Virginia, the state’s planned 2028 ban on synthetic food dyes are now facing legal challenges that could delay or weaken implementation. Industry stakeholders argue that outright bans preempt federal authority and may not withstand constitutional scrutiny, particularly if they disrupt established national standards.

Together, these developments signal that while momentum for stricter state-level food regulation is growing, the courtroom may become the primary battleground shaping how — and whether — such policies ultimately take effect.

California – On February 17th, California introduced AB 2034, a bill aimed at greatly increasing state regulation of food additives, including those currently labeled as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). If passed, the bill would:
•Require companies to notify the state and obtain licenses for certain food additives,
•Establish a public database where additive safety information must be submitted,
•Reduce reliance on self-declared GRAS status,
•Expand requirements for ingredient disclosure,
•Mandate regular reviews of currently approved additives.

This proposal would give the California Department of Public Health a stronger role in evaluating the safety of food chemicals. If implemented, it would be one of the most assertive state efforts to address perceived gaps in GRAS regulations, potentially creating an additional regulatory system alongside existing federal rules. For manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, these changes would involve much more than compliance—they could significantly impact supply chain operations and product management. Further updates are expected as the bill advances through the legislative process.