\n<\/p>\n
2025 was an impactful year in the world of food law. Last week, NALC staff identified the \u201ctop ten\u201d areas in agricultural and environmental law. Now, for those interested in more food- and consumer \u2013 focused issues, here are the top areas of food law and policy receiving attention this year.<\/p>\n
MAHA Movement <\/strong><\/p>\n The Make America Healthy Again (\u201cMAHA\u201d) movement, unknown before 2024, has come out of the shadows to become a central theme of food law this year. On February 13, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order<\/a> creating the Make America Healthy Again Commission. Members were tasked with the mission of \u201cadvis[ing] and assist[ing] the President on how to best exercise his authority to address the childhood chronic disease crisis.\u201d Consequently, the Commission published both The MAHA Report<\/a> and The MAHA Strategy<\/a>. These documents identify the \u201cfour primary drivers\u201d the Commission believes is causing the increase of childhood chronic disease and outlines the administrations strategy for addressing them. On the federal level, the MAHA movement is primarily spearheaded by the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy, but this movement has caused several noticeable changes on both the federal and state levels. As a result, there are several categories in this \u201cTop Ten\u201d that might fall under the MAHA mantle.<\/p>\n Defining UPFs <\/strong><\/p>\n This year the definition and regulation of ultra-processed foods (UPF) was top of mind in the food law arena. At the current time, there is no universally accepted definition of UPFs in either law or science. However, in 2025 California\u2019s AB 1264 created the first statutory definition of the term and made California the first state to ban certain foods meeting that definition from being served in schools. This is particularly noteworthy because this year the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration announced that they are collaborating to create a federally recognized uniform definition for UPFs. The agencies published a joint Request for Information seeking public input on their definition. While it is still unclear what the federal definition will look like, California\u2019s law might have an effect. Additionally, as the 2026 state legislative sessions begin, other states might use California\u2019s law as a template in their own UPF proposals. To learn more about the attempt to define UPFs, click here to read NALC article \u201c\u2019MAHA\u2019 Movement: Defining Ultra-processed Foods.\u201d<\/p>\n SNAP Waivers <\/strong><\/p>\n In keeping with the theme of \u201cMAHA,\u201d in 2025 a number of states sought waivers from USDA to limit the types of foods that are eligible for purchase with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. While SNAP is a federal program, it is administered to participants through state actors. However, USDA remains the authority to determine which foods are eligible for purchase. In order to restrict certain foods from eligibility, states had to request permission through a required \u201cwaiver\u201d process. In 2025, eighteen states submitted a waiver request, while fifteen have so far been granted. For more information on the fifteen approved waivers, including their target implementation dates, click here<\/a>. To learn more about the waiver request process, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201cExcluding \u2018Junk\u2019 Food from SNAP Benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n Changes in SNAP participant eligibility <\/strong><\/p>\n In its Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Congress included several changes to SNAP that will have impacts on SNAP eligibility. First, Congress altered the Thrifty Food Plan, which determines the amount of SNAP benefits a household can receive. Specifically, the OBBBA altered the Thrifty Food Plan\u2019s re-evaluation procedure requiring that it must be \u201ccost-neutral\u201d and only adjusted in relation to inflation. Currently, the re-evaluation procedure takes factors like \u201ccurrent food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance\u201d into account, however, under the cost-neutral scheme, benefits cannot be increased due to those circumstantial factors. Thus, it is likely that SNAP benefits will be reduced in the future. Further, the OBBBA modifies work requirements for SNAP participants and requires states with payment error rates above a certain level to pay an increased share of the cost of SNAP benefits. Additionally, the OBBBA also eliminates the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) and removes SNAP eligibility for certain categories of non-citizens, such as refugees, that had previously been eligible. To learn more about the OBBBA\u2019s impacts on SNAP, click here<\/a> to read NALC\u2019s article \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill Act: Nutrition Title.\u201d<\/p>\n Federal Food Ingredient Oversight <\/strong><\/p>\n Another major theme this year was the federal oversight of food ingredients. It began quite early in the year, before the presidential transition occurred. In January, the Biden Administration\u2019s FDA revoked<\/a> the color additive listing for use of Red Dye No. 3 in food and ingested drugs. After the transition, FDA and HHS Secretary Kennedy has made it a focus of his agency. FDA has continued to announce initiatives related to food ingredients. For example, FDA rolled out its six-pronged plan to \u201cphase out\u201d synthetic dyes, which included actions like authorizing new natural color dyes and revoking authority for synthetic dyes Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B. Further, in response to the phase out plan, many food manufacturing companies announced an intention to remove synthetic dyes from their food products. A list of those commitments can be found here<\/a>. Concurrently, FDA announced<\/a> a new review process for food chemicals already on the market. Finally, Secretary Kennedy published his directive to FDA ordering the agency to explore eliminating the \u201cgenerally recognized as safe\u201d self-affirming pathway for food ingredients. To learn more about these and other FDA notable announcements from 2025, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201c\u2019MAHA\u2019 Movement: June 2025.\u201d<\/p>\n State MAHA Laws <\/strong><\/p>\n This year also saw an increase in states wading into several food-related regulatory spaces. For instance, both Texas and Louisiana passed landmark legislation creating labeling requirements for foods that contain specific ingredients. Other relevant legislative proposals in various states have included bans on artificial food dyes being sold in states, artificial food dyes being banned specifically from school meals, required disclosures for the presence of seed oils, and mandated reporting for foods made with \u201cGRAS\u201d ingredients. To learn more, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201c\u2019MAHA\u2019 Movement: New Texas and Louisiana Laws.\u201d<\/p>\n FDA Final \u201chealthy\u201d rule takes effect <\/strong><\/p>\n In December 2024, the Biden Administration\u2019s FDA published its final rule<\/a> updating the definition for the labeling claim \u201chealthy.\u201d This rule updated the requirements a human food product must meet to be permitted to bear the claim \u201chealthy\u201d on its packaging. While the initial final rule had an effective date of February 25, 2025, after taking office, the Trump Administration delayed<\/a> the effective date by 60 days to review for questions of fact, law, and policy. However, the rule took effect on April 28, 2025 without any amendments from the Trump Administration and the compliance date remains February 25, 2028. To learn more about the final rule, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201cFDA Releases Final \u2018Healthy\u2019 Rule.\u201d<\/p>\n Salmonella Rule Withdrawn <\/strong><\/p>\n In April 2025, the USDA\u2019s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) withdrew<\/a> its proposed rule entitled \u201cSalmonella<\/em> Framework for Raw Poultry Products.\u201d The proposal was significant because it declared poultry products \u201cadulterated\u201d if they were contaminated with certain levels or distinguishable strands of Salmonella<\/em>. Adulterated food may not be sold for consumption. It followed the landmark 2024 FSIS final rule<\/a> declaring Salmonella<\/em> an adulterant in not ready-to-eat breaded stuff chicken products \u2013 the first time that the presence of Salmonella<\/em> in poultry, alone, was determined to meet this standard. FSIS has stated that it is further considering comments made during the open comment period that took place after the rule was initially proposed. To read more about the withdrawn proposed rule, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201cFSIS Proposed Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products.\u201d<\/p>\n Alternative Proteins <\/strong><\/p>\n In keeping trend with the past few years, several states proposed and enacted legislation related to alternative proteins. This included labeling requirements for cell-cultured, plant-based, or insect-based proteins, as well as restrictions on the manufacturing, sale, processing, or distribution of cell-cultured meat. At the conclusion of 2025, 21 states have created a labeling standard for alternative proteins, while 7 states have restrictions on the manufacturing or sale of cell-cultured proteins. To learn more about the enacted legislation, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201cAlternative Proteins: 2025 Legislative Update.\u201d For more information on all state laws related to alternative proteins, click here<\/a> to view NALC\u2019s Alternative Protein Laws State Compilation. Subsequently, some of these laws have been challenged in court. For example, after its effective date, the Texas restriction on the manufacture and sale of cell-cultured meat was challenged for its constitutionality. To learn more about the Texas case and others, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201cAlternative Proteins: 2025 Litigation Update.\u201d<\/p>\n BE Foods case <\/strong><\/p>\n Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided<\/a> a case challenging the exclusion by USDA\u2019s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) of highly refined foods from its uniform bioengineered (BE) foods disclosure standard. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard requires that food manufacturers, importers, and certain retailers disclose the presence of BE foods or BE food ingredients. In the current standard, foods that have undergone a high level of processing are not required to disclose the presence of BE material because the material was thought to be \u201cundetectable.\u201d However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed and remanded the issue back to AMS for further consideration. This is significant because if could potentially require numerous food products to bear a BE disclosure that previously were not required to do so. To learn more about the BE disclosure generally, click here<\/a> to read NALC article \u201cAMS Updating the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard\u2019s List of Bioengineered Foods.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n