Summer So Far: Key Food Regulatory + Litigation Developments

Summer 2026 has seen a steady stream of significant food regulatory developments across FDA, state legislatures, and the courts. Most notably, FDA has delayed its proposed mandatory GRAS notification rule until December 2026, while the Trump administration appears poised to introduce its anticipated federal definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) as a research tool rather than through formal rulemaking. At the same time, states continue to expand food additive restrictions, contaminant testing requirements, and consumer disclosure obligations, while litigation remains active across labeling, sustainability, and advertising claims. Below we provide a concise roundup of the most significant developments—and their implications for industry.

Federal Developments

• GRAS Proposal Delayed Until December 2026. On July 3, the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) released its 2026 Unified Regulatory Agenda, identifying several planned FDA food regulatory rulemakings, including—most notably—a proposed rule on mandatory GRAS notices that is now delayed until December 2026.
• The Unified Agenda listing for this proposed rule (0910-AJ02) notes that FDA intends to amend 21 CFR parts 170 and 570 to require submission of a GRAS notice for covered uses of human or animal food substances. The Agenda also states that, if finalized, “uses of food substances that are subject to the mandatory notification requirement will be presumed by FDA not to be GRAS unless the notification requirement has been met regarding the use of the substance.”
• The Unified Agenda listing suggests that FDA may be considering a transition process for existing self-GRAS determinations. Specifically, the Agenda discusses one-time costs associated with preparing and submitting “streamlined submissions” for substances introduced into interstate commerce before the effective date of a final rule and refers to a “window of availability for this time-limited option.” Although the Agenda provides no additional details, this language suggests FDA may be contemplating a transition mechanism for existing marketed substances rather than requiring all existing self-GRAS conclusions to proceed through the full notification process immediately.
• FOP Labeling Rule Remains Priority, among other rulemaking anticipated for the remainder of 2026. More specifically, the 2026 Unified Regulatory Agenda includes, among others: (1) a final rule to require the display of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labeling for food products (0910-AI80); (2) a proposed rule to update nutrient content claims for added sugars (0910-AJ20); and (3) a proposed rule to establish conditions under which a specific ingredient would not be excluded from the dietary supplement definition, allowing products containing the ingredient to be lawfully marketed as dietary supplements, assuming they otherwise meet the dietary supplement definition (0910-AI91).

• FDA’s Updated Guidance Agenda Puts Online Grocery Labeling, “Healthy” Claims, Caffeine Labeling, and Heavy Metals in Focus. On June 29, FDA’s Human Foods Program released its updated 2026 guidance agenda, identifying several priority guidance topics relevant to food labeling and compliance, including, among others:
• Food Labeling for Online Grocery Shopping Platforms (Draft Guidance);
• Questions and Answers regarding use of the “healthy” claim;
• Caffeine Content labeling in Foods and Beverages (Draft Guidance);
• Action Levels for Cadmium in Processed Food Intended for Babies and Young Children (Draft Guidance); and
• Action Levels for Inorganic Arsenic in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children (Draft Guidance).

Recent State Developments

State legislative activity in the food sector continues apace.

• On June 23, the Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill that would prohibit the sale of foods containing brominated vegetable oil, propylparaben, and several synthetic dyes, beginning January 1, 2029.
• More specifically, HB 5069 would prohibit foods containing Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, or Yellow 6, in addition to brominated vegetable oil and propylparaben.
• The bill would not apply to any listed substance if the federal government prohibits that substance before the state restriction takes effect.
• On June 2, the New York Legislature delivered a bill that would create statewide rules for food date labeling to Governor Hochul.
• S7618/A7291 would reserve safety-related date labels for “Use By” or “Use By or Freeze By” and quality-related date labels for “Best if Used By” or “Best If Used or Frozen By.”
• The bill also would limit use of “sell by” dates and includes exemptions for certain foods, including infant formula, eggs, alcoholic beverages, and some prepared foods.
• If enacted, the law would take effect July 1, 2028 and would add New York to the growing number of states seeking to standardize food date labels to reduce consumer confusion and food waste.
• On June 1, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a bill delaying and modifying the state’s food additive disclosure requirements enacted last year under SB 14 (see attached).
• SB 57 pushes the effective date for the disclosure requirements from January 1, 2028 to December 31, 2028.
• It also narrows the disclosure obligation to listed additives that FDA requires to be declared on the food label and removes acesulfame potassium from the list of ingredients triggering the QR code disclosure requirement and the school food restriction.

Texas AG targets health- and wellness-oriented food, beverage, and supplement products.

• In two June announcements, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened consumer-protection investigations focused on health- and wellness-oriented food, beverage, and supplement products.
• On June 4, AG Paxton announced an investigation into Celsius Holdings, Inc. and subsidiary Alani Nutrition, LLC regarding marketing and safety representations for Alani Nu energy drinks.
• The investigation focuses on whether the companies misled consumers, particularly children and teenagers, about the safety of high-caffeine energy drinks.
• The investigation reflects continued state-level scrutiny of health-related marketing claims and products targeted toward children and adolescents.
• On June 8, the Texas AG announced an industry-wide investigation into protein powder manufacturers based on concerns about heavy metals, including lead and cadmium, in certain protein powder and ready-to-drink shake products.
• More specifically, the investigation follows testing cited by the Texas AG’s office from Consumer Reports and the Clean Label Project, including findings that certain protein powders and ready-to-drink shakes contained elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and/or inorganic arsenic.
• The Texas AG’s office stated that it is investigating whether manufacturers violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by falsely marketing or misrepresenting the safety and contents of their products or by failing to disclose known information about heavy metal contamination.
• The investigation reflects continued state-level scrutiny of food and dietary supplement safety, contaminant disclosures, and health-related marketing claims.

Litigation

• On June 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiff’s request to file an amended complaint alleging that major food manufacturers caused him to develop Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease through the consumption of ultra-processed foods. Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00377-MRP (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2026).
• Plaintiff alleged that he regularly consumed 179 ultra-processed food products from 2009 to 2021 and that the products were inherently dangerous, addictive, and sold without adequate warnings. The court held that the proposed amended complaint still alleged only correlation, increased risk, and “biological plausibility,” not facts showing that any specific product or defendant caused his diagnoses. The court also rejected alternative and market-share liability because the products and allegedly harmful ingredients were not identical or fungible, making amendment futile.
• On June 15, 2026, Danone US filed a lawsuit against competitor Chobani, alleging that Chobani falsely markets its 32-ounce “20G Protein” yogurt products. Danone US, LLC v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05037 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2026).
• The complaint alleges that Chobani improperly inflates serving sizes for its multi-serving yogurt tubs in a manner that violates FDA labeling rules. Danone alleges that the inflated serving size allows Chobani to claim 20 grams of protein per serving, when the products allegedly contain only about 18 grams.
• On June 12, 2026, the New York Supreme Court for Kings County granted Continental Mills’ motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Krusteaz Cinnamon Swirl Quick Bread Mix is deceptively labeled “No Artificial Flavors • Colors • Preservatives.” Handsome v. Cont’l Mills, Inc., No. 535263/2025 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cnty. June 12, 2026).
• The plaintiff alleged that the product contains silicon dioxide, which she claimed functions as a preservative, even though the ingredient list identifies it as an anti-caking agent. The court found that the plaintiff adequately alleged silicon dioxide may function as a preservative but failed to plausibly allege that reasonable consumers would be materially misled by the challenged labeling. In particular, the court held that the complaint focused on consumers’ general dislike of chemical preservatives rather than facts showing that reasonable consumers would likely view the disclosed anti-caking agent as an artificial preservative. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the New York General Business Law claims without prejudice.
• On June 3, 2026, a proposed class action was filed against Cove Drinks alleging that its probiotic sodas are deceptively marketed as containing “No Artificial Sweeteners.” Williams v. Cove Drinks, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-03374-H-JLB (S.D. Cal. June 3, 2026).
• The complaint alleges that the products contain erythritol, which plaintiffs characterize as an artificial sweetener because it is commercially manufactured through industrial fermentation and multi-step processing rather than being directly derived from natural sources. Particularly, the lawsuit claims that consumers seeking healthier and more natural beverages are misled by the “No Artificial Sweeteners” claim because erythritol is one of the products’ primary sweetening ingredients.

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.