Food regulation update June 26: The latest on MAHA and related developments

CHICAGO, June 26, 2026 — The following is 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.

MAHA

Kennedy's Roadshow

The White House is increasingly leveraging Secretary Kennedy as a key messenger ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, sending him to competitive congressional districts across the country to promote the administration's MAHA agenda. Recent stops in Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio have focused on issues such as nutrition, food additives, physical activity, chronic disease prevention, addiction, and public health reform.

Administration officials maintain that Kennedy's appearances are focused on policy outreach rather than electoral politics, highlighting initiatives related to dietary guidelines, synthetic food dyes, ultra-processed foods, infant formula safety, and chronic disease prevention. However, many of the visits have taken place in highly competitive House districts, underscoring the political value the White House sees in Kennedy's ability to connect with voters concerned about health, food quality, and government accountability.

For food and nutrition stakeholders, the strategy signals that MAHA-related priorities are likely to remain central to the administration's policy and political messaging heading into November. Issues such as food ingredient safety, nutrition guidance, school meals, chronic disease prevention, and food system reform are increasingly being framed not only as public health initiatives but also as key components of the broader political debate leading up to the midterm elections.

FEDERAL

Supreme Court Ruling & Glyphosate

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory to Bayer, Monsanto, and the Trump administration this week, ruling in a 7-2 decision that federal pesticide labeling requirements preempt certain state-law failure-to-warn claims. In Monsanto v. Durnell, the Court found that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) prevents states from requiring pesticide labels to include warnings beyond those approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The case centered on allegations that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer and that Monsanto failed to adequately warn consumers of potential risks. The Court sided with Monsanto and the Trump administration, which argued that EPA's determination that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk when used according to label instructions precludes states from imposing additional warning requirements. The ruling is expected to significantly limit future failure-to-warn lawsuits against Bayer and could result in the dismissal of thousands of pending claims tied to Roundup litigation.

The decision comes after years of legal battles that have cost Bayer billions of dollars in settlements and judgments. Supporters of the ruling argue that allowing individual states to mandate additional pesticide warnings would create a patchwork of conflicting requirements and undermine the federal regulatory framework governing pesticide safety. Critics, including consumer advocates and trial attorneys, contend that the decision restricts legal avenues for individuals seeking compensation for alleged harms associated with pesticide exposure.

The ruling also represents a significant setback for the MAHA movement, which has increasingly focused on pesticides, environmental exposures, and chemical safety as contributors to chronic disease. Many MAHA supporters have expressed frustration with the administration's support for conventional agriculture and crop protection products, and the decision is likely to deepen tensions between parts of the movement and the White House ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

For food and agriculture stakeholders, the case underscores the growing intersection of pesticide regulation, public health concerns, federal preemption, and consumer transparency. While the decision strengthens the authority of EPA and reinforces the primacy of federal labeling requirements, it may also accelerate efforts by some advocates and policymakers to pursue restrictions on pesticides and chemical exposures through legislation or regulatory petitions. As debates over glyphosate and pesticide safety continue, the ruling is expected to remain a key touchpoint in broader discussions about the role of federal regulators, scientific risk assessments, and consumer protection.

Scrutiny of Kennedy

House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) is signaling a more aggressive approach toward Secretary Kennedy, raising the possibility of expanded congressional investigations and renewed discussions around impeachment efforts if Democrats regain control of the House after the 2026 midterm elections. The comments reflect growing Democratic frustration with Kennedy's actions at HHS, including agency restructuring and reductions in research funding. This coincides with the release of a 105-page committee report from Democrats outlining the detrimental impact to public health under the Trump Administration. While any impeachment effort would face significant political and procedural hurdles, the remarks underscore the increasingly partisan environment surrounding federal health policy. Kennedy has already been the subject of impeachment articles introduced by some House Democrats, though those efforts have gained little traction in the Republican-controlled House.

For food, nutrition, and health stakeholders, the development highlights the likelihood that HHS actions under Kennedy — including chronic disease prevention, MAHA priorities, nutrition policy, and agency operations — will remain under intense congressional scrutiny heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

Regenerative Agriculture

President Trump signed an Executive Order directing HHS, USDA, and EPA to expand research, innovation, and public-private partnerships supporting regenerative agriculture as part of the Administration's MAHA agenda. The order aims to strengthen soil health, improve farm resilience, support rural economies, and advance understanding of how agricultural practices, nutrition, environmental exposures, and human health are connected. The Executive Order directs the agencies to develop a research framework for evaluating cumulative chemical exposures in the food supply using new scientific approaches. It also instructs HHS to launch a NIH Grand Prize Challenge focused on innovative methods to evaluate and address cumulative chemical exposures and calls on the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) to prioritize technologies that reduce reliance on chemical crop protection tools while supporting human health.

In conjunction with the announcement, HHS released an Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) issue brief reviewing the emerging evidence linking regenerative agriculture with food quality, environmental exposures, and population health. The report concludes that while additional research is needed, regenerative agriculture represents a promising area for advancing healthier food systems and supporting chronic disease prevention.

FDA

Comment Period Extension

In response to a stakeholder request, the FDA has extended the public comment period by 30 days for its scientific evaluation of phthalates currently authorized as plasticizers for food contact use. This evaluation will help inform the agency's upcoming post-market safety assessment of food contact uses of phthalates. Comments may now be submitted through July 26, 2026, to docket FDA-2026-N-5776. For more information, please see FDA Advances Post-Market Review of Phthalates Used in Food Contact Materials.

USDA

SNAP Setback & Error Rates

A federal court has struck down the Trump administration's approval of state waivers restricting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for certain foods and beverages, dealing a significant setback to one of the most prominent policy initiatives associated with the MAHA movement.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit challenging USDA's approval of demonstration projects that would have prohibited SNAP recipients from purchasing products such as soda, candy, and other sugary foods and beverages. The court concluded that USDA exceeded its statutory authority when approving the waivers, finding that USDA Secretary Rollins improperly interpreted federal SNAP law. The decision applies to waivers approved for Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia had already implemented restrictions, while Tennessee's waiver was scheduled to take effect at the end of July. Colorado's approved waiver had not yet moved forward due to state-level concerns and opposition.

Advocates for anti-hunger programs welcomed the ruling, arguing that SNAP was designed to combat food insecurity and does not authorize the federal government to restrict food choices based on nutritional criteria. The Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), which supported the legal challenge, characterized the decision as an affirmation that Congress, not USDA, must determine any changes to eligible SNAP purchases. Critics of the restrictions have also argued that limiting food choices could increase stigma for SNAP participants and create administrative burdens for retailers.

The decision marks the first major judicial challenge to a signature MAHA policy priority and raises questions about the future of state-led efforts to reshape SNAP purchasing rules. Several states have expressed interest in pursuing similar restrictions as part of broader efforts to address diet-related chronic disease and encourage healthier food choices among program participants.

For the food industry, retailers, and anti-hunger advocates, the case highlights the growing legal and political debate over whether nutrition assistance programs should be used as a tool to influence dietary behavior. While MAHA supporters argue that restricting purchases of products viewed as contributing to chronic disease aligns SNAP with public health objectives, opponents contend that such changes require congressional action and risk undermining the program's core mission of reducing food insecurity. Whether USDA or affected states appeals the decision remains unclear, but the case is expected to remain a closely watched indicator of the limits of executive authority in shaping federal nutrition policy.

In addition, this week USDA reported a national SNAP payment error rate of 10.62% for FY 2025, well above the statutory 6% threshold and representing approximately $10.1 billion in improper payments nationwide. While slightly improved from FY 2024, the rate continues to highlight challenges in accurately determining eligibility and benefit levels. Under provisions included in H.R. 1 — commonly known as the "big, beautiful bill" — states with error rates above 6% could face new financial penalties beginning in FY 2027 and will be required to submit corrective action plans outlining steps to reduce errors. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said the results underscored the need for greater state accountability and stronger oversight of SNAP administration.

Educational Resources Provided

USDA recently released two educational resources aimed at supporting child nutrition programs as schools prepare for potential updates to meal standards aligned with the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The agency's Food and Nutrition Service will host an August webinar focused on incorporating locally sourced beef into school meals, covering procurement strategies, food safety requirements, and a student-led meat processing program in Indiana. Separately, USDA's Team Nutrition released an on-demand training course for Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) operators that provides guidance on vegetable requirements, menu planning flexibilities, and strategies to increase vegetable variety in meals and snacks. The resources come as USDA continues to work on future school meal regulations and signals an ongoing emphasis on strengthening local food procurement and supporting implementation of updated dietary guidance in child nutrition programs.

STATES

Delaware

Lawmakers in Delaware have advanced legislation that would encourage retailers to voluntarily post caffeine warning signage for beverages and dietary supplements, while also considering menu disclosure requirements for high-caffeine beverages. Similar proposals have emerged in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, though each differs in scope, caffeine thresholds, and disclosure requirements. Together, these efforts could create a growing patchwork of state-level caffeine labeling expectations for retailers, restaurants, and beverage manufacturers.

New Hampshire

Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) of NH signed legislation establishing a commission to evaluate potential SNAP reforms, including ways to prioritize healthy food purchases and assess the impacts of potential purchase restrictions. The group will examine economic effects on retailers, compliance costs, tax revenues, and access to food in both rural and urban communities. The commission is expected to deliver recommendations to state lawmakers and the governor by November 1.

OTHER NEWS

Beverage Transparency

The American Beverage Association (ABA) announced that consumers will soon be able to access ingredient and food additive information by scanning QR codes on beverage labels. The codes will direct users to ABA's Good to Know Facts platform, launched in 2025, which provides information on beverage ingredients and food additives using content the association says is based on trusted scientific and regulatory sources. The website includes summaries of safety assessments and authorizations conducted by agencies and organizations such as the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Major beverage manufacturers, including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper, have committed to incorporating the QR codes on product packaging as part of the industry's broader effort to increase transparency around ingredients and food safety.