February 2026 has seen a flurry of Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) aligned food policy activity across federal agencies, state legislatures, and the courts. Policymakers sharpened scrutiny of the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) framework and so-called ultra-processed foods, while advancing state-level testing, disclosure, and warning label mandates. The unifying theme is more assertive oversight of ingredient safety and labeling transparency. Below we provide a concise roundup of the most significant developments—and the implications for industry.
On February 5, FDA issued a letter to the food industry on “No Artificial Colors” claims, announcing that the agency intends to exercise enforcement discretion for food products that do not contain FD&C certified colors and that make any of the following claims: “Made without artificial food colors/colorings,” “No artificial colors/colors/coloring,” or “No added artificial color/colors/coloring.”
This marks a shift from FDA’s prior position in Compliance Policy Guide Section 587.100 under which FDA did not allow such claims for products that contained any color additive, regardless of whether the colors were naturally derived. FDA also concurrently approved a new naturally derived color additive (beetroot red) and expanded permitted uses of spirulina extract.
These developments align with the current administration’s MAHA agenda and builds on the agency’s plan announced last spring to encourage the food industry to phase out certified colors from the nation’s food supply.
On February 15, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and former FDA Commissioner David Kessler appeared on 60 Minutes in a segment titled “Generally Recognized as Safe,” focusing on FDA’s GRAS framework and its relationship to ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
Secretary Kennedy reiterated core MAHA themes, describing GRAS as a statutory “loophole” originating in 1958 and arguing that it has enabled widespread use of industrial ingredients without premarket FDA review. He further stated that FDA “will act on” Dr. Kessler’s August 2025 citizen petition seeking to revoke GRAS status for certain refined carbohydrates. Notably, FDA had already issued a February 10, 2026 interim response to the petition, indicating that further evaluation is ongoing.
While signaling continued momentum around GRAS reform, Secretary Kennedy clarified that the administration is not proposing to regulate so-called ultra-processed foods as a defined category.
State lawmakers continue to introduce bills that would impose mandatory reporting of GRAS substances used in foods.
California GRAS Bill
On February 17, California became the latest state to introduce GRAS legislation (AB 2034). The CA bill would, among other things, require manufacturers of food sold in California to provide evidence to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) that any color additive, food additive, or dietary ingredient introduced after 1958 that has not undergone a pre-market review by FDA is safe.
Manufacturers would also be required to provide CDPH with complete ingredient information if not fully disclosed on labels, including incidental additives and other ingredients exempt from labeling under 21 CFR 101.10 of FDA’s food labeling regulations. If passed, the bill would additionally mandate CDPH to review at least 10 substances every three years and ban the use of those it determines are unsafe and poorly tested from foods sold in California.
New York GRAS Bill
On February 5, the New York Senate passed the Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act for a second time after the bill stalled in the Assembly in June 2025. (S 1239)
The NY bill would, among other things, impose state‑level reporting requirements for substances that manufacturers self-determine to be GRAS, while also limiting reliance on FDA GRAS recognition as a defense in state enforcement actions. The bill is currently pending in the NY Assembly Committee on Agriculture.
New Jersey GRAS Bill
On February 2, New Jersey lawmakers reintroduced a bill (S 3277), which would require manufacturers of food and nonalcoholic beverages sold in the state to submit annual reports to the New Jersey Department of Health for each new use of a food additive that the manufacturer has determined to be exempt from FDA premarket approval on the basis of a GRAS conclusion. The bill is currently pending in the NJ Senate Committee on Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens.
On February 10, FDA announced that the agency initiated a comprehensive reassessment of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), a common antioxidant used in a range of food and food-contact applications consistent with applicable FDA requirements, including food additive authorizations, GRAS listings, and prior sanctions. FDA concurrently issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking data on BHA’s use in human food and food-contact applications across 12 specific areas, including product categories, use levels, dietary exposure, and safety data. Responses to this RFI are due April 13, 2026. FDA’s announcement and RFI follow the agency’s addition of BHA to the List of Select Chemicals in the Food Supply Under FDA Review in August 2025.
On February 11, a federal court temporarily blocked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from enforcing Section 9 of Texas Senate Bill (SB) 25, finding that it likely violates the First Amendment by forcing food and beverage companies to affix a government-written warning label on their products. SB 25 would require food and beverage companies to place a government-drafted warning label on products containing any of 44 listed ingredients, effective January 1, 2027.
As covered in our recent blog post, on December 5, 2025, four national food and beverage trade associations filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging Section 9 of Texas Senate Bill 25 (SB 25). In its February 11 order, the court held that the plaintiffs challenging the law are likely to succeed on their claim that Section 9 violates the First Amendment by “unconstitutionally compelling speech” —specifically, by requiring food and beverage makers to disseminate a government-scripted message. Although Texas argued that the requirement advances public health, the court concluded that the state could pursue those interests through less speech-restrictive means, such as its own advertising or public education campaigns.
For now, Texas cannot enforce SB 25’s labeling requirements while the case proceeds. As other states explore analogous warning requirements, the court’s decision may shape the trajectory of those initiatives.
On February 11, a California lawmaker introduced Senate Bill (SB) 1033, legislation that would impose new California testing and heavy metal disclosure obligations on bulk and packaged protein products sold in the state.
If enacted, beginning January 1, 2028, manufacturers of bulk or packaged protein products sold into California would be required to test a representative sample of each lot for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury and submit the results to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Brand owners would be required to publicly post lot-specific testing results on their websites and include on-package and online statements directing consumers to that information. Covered products include powdered supplements, liquid beverages, and other foods containing concentrated protein.
Separate from the series of MAHA-focused initiatives recapped above—and equally significant from a food regulatory compliance perspective—FDA continued advancing implementation of its Food Traceability Rule this month through several actions, including: issuance of a draft questions and answers guidance, finalizing an exemption applicable to certain cottage cheese products, and commencing congressionally mandated quarterly stakeholder engagement sessions.
On February 19, FDA published a draft questions and answers guidance addressing stakeholder questions on implementation of the Food Traceability Rule, finalized an exemption for certain Grade “A” cottage cheese products, and announced stakeholder engagement sessions to support compliance. Two notable clarifications from the draft guidance include:
MoFo continues to track the latest food regulatory developments and implications for industry. If you have any questions regarding this alert, please contact the authors.