Another Helping of Food Law Updates: Ultra-Processed Foods, Heavy Metals, and More "MAHA"
Welcome to another edition of our Food Regulatory Update, where we delve into the latest developments and changes in food regulations that have emerged over the past few months. From the MAHA Strategy Report to developments around "ultra-processed foods," food industry stakeholders need to be on their toes. Here are the latest highlights:
MAHA Strategy Report
On September 9, 2025, the Make America Healthy Again Commission released its final strategy report—titled "Make Our Children Healthy Again"—as a follow-on from the Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment that was released in May 2025. (A copy of the report was leaked on August 15, 2025, by POLITICO.) The final report focuses on the four "potential drivers" behind the increased prevalence among children in the U.S. of chronic disease that were identified in the Assessment: poor diet, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and overmedicalization.
The report identifies specific strategies to address those topics under the umbrella of four high-level strategy categories:
- advancing critical research to drive innovation;
- realigning incentives and systems to drive health outcomes research and advancements in innovation (focused on policy reforms, process efficiencies and deregulation, and agency restructuring);
- increasing public awareness and knowledge; and
- fostering private-sector collaboration.
The report does not contain much by way of specifics or details on how these proposed strategies will be achieved; we will have to wait and see if and how these proposed strategies play out.
Ultra-Processed Foods
- Request for Information about Ultra-Processed Foods: On July 23, 2025, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration announced it would issue a joint request for information ("RFI") about ultra-processed foods. The stated goal is "to help develop a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for human food products in the U.S. food supply" to facilitate "consistency in research and policy" across federal agencies for addressing the health impacts of ultra-processed food consumption. The RFI summarizes some of the health concerns related to U.S. consumers' dietary habits, and identifies that there is no single, universally accepted definition of ultra-processed foods (the most commonly used definition comes out of Brazil). The RFI then discusses how various states are introducing and passing legislation that bans "ultra-processed foods," the definition of which varies state by state. What likely will result is a patchwork of state definitions, which could make it more difficult for companies that sell food products across the country to comply. The RFI requests comment on five broad questions related to existing systems or classifications of ultra-processed foods, ingredient labeling, manufacturing processes, whether the term "ultra-processed" is the best term to use, and the health impacts of ultra-processed food consumption. The public can comment; comments on the RFI were originally due by September 23, 2025, but the deadline was extended by 30 additional days to October 23, 2025 (the comment portal currently remains open during the federal government shutdown).
- Lawsuit Against Large Food Companies re UPFs Dismissed: In January 2025, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a number of large food companies alleging that the foods they manufacture and sell to children are addictive, ultra-processed foods that are causing significant harm to the health of those who consume such products, and the companies allegedly concealed the health risks from consumers. In August, the case was dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In dismissing the case, the judge pointed to the plaintiff's failure to allege which products he consumed, how often he ate the defendants' products, when he ate them, and in what amounts; further, the plaintiff did not connect when he ate the products to when he received any of his diagnoses or when he began experiencing symptoms of the diseases. In short, the allegations were too vague and did not provide enough specificity to tie the products to the harm the plaintiff alleges he has suffered.
- California Passes Law Defining Ultra-Processed Foods; Bans "UPFs of Concern" from School Food: In mid-September 2025, California passed AB 1264, which was signed into law by the Governor on October 8, 2025. The law defines "ultraprocessed food" as a food or beverage that contains:
any ingredient that falls into one of the following eight categories: surface-active agents; stabilizers and thickeners; propellants, aerating agents, and gases; colors and coloring adjuncts; emulsifiers and emulsifier salts; flavoring agents and adjuvants (with some exceptions); nonnutritive sweeteners;
AND
either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar; or a non-nutritive sweetener; or any of the following: D-sorbitol; erythritol; hydrogenated starch hydrolysates; sucralose; isomalt; lactitol; luo han fruit concentrate; maltitol; steviol glycosides; thaumatin; or xylitol.
Among other provisions, the law amends the state's Education Code on competitive school food standards to focus on healthier options and requires the state Department of Public Health to define "ultraprocessed food of concern," which will not allowed to be sold in schools beginning on July 1, 2032.
- Louisiana's Own MAHA Law (SB 14): Around the time the Texas governor signed into law SB 25 (discussed in our last update), Louisiana was finalizing something similar. Under Louisiana's SB 14, if a food product contains one of 44 identified ingredients (which overlaps with but is not identical to the list in Texas' SB 25), the product label must include a QR code (with an adjacent statement indicating that additional information can be accessed by scanning the code) that links to a webpage that says: "NOTICE: This product contains [insert ingredient here]. For more information about this ingredient, including FDA approvals, click HERE." The disclaimer must link to the FDA's website regarding food chemical safety. If a food + beverage company sells in both Texas and Louisiana, and their product requires a disclosure, that company will need to include a QR code AND the language required by Texas' SB 25. Labeling real estate on packages is already fairly tight, so it remains to be seen how companies will adjust their labels (or reformulate) to comply with these new requirements.
In addition, food service establishments (such as restaurants) must disclose on their menus the potential presence of seed oils if the food service establishment cooks or prepares food using seed oil (defined as: canola or rapeseed oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, rice bran oil, safflower oil, soybean oil, and sunflower oil).
Heavy Metals in Baby Food
- Illinois Baby Foods – Toxic Heavy Metals Law (SB 73): Illinois is the most recent state (along with California, Maryland, and Virginia) to enact a law about testing and disclosure of heavy metals in baby food. Illinois' SB 73 requires baby food manufacturers to test on a monthly basis a certain amount of product for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury, and to post the monthly test results (along with descriptive information about the product) on its website. If there exists a federal action level, regulatory limit, or tolerance established by the FDA, the baby food product label must include a QR code with the statement: "For information about the toxic element testing on this product, scan the Quick Response (QR) code." The linked to website must contain the test results for that element and a link to the relevant FDA website.
- Texas AG Investigation: In late August, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton initiated an investigation into and sent Civil Investigative Demands to major baby food manufacturers regarding allegedly dangerous levels of heavy metals in the baby food products they manufacture.
Federal Legislation
- On August 12, 2025, the Grocery Reform and Safety Act (GRAS Act) (H.R. 4958) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The proposed law would formalize the requirement for a person to submit to FDA a notice about their use of a substance they have concluded is generally recognized as safe and their substantiation for such conclusion. In order to use the substance, the person would need to receive a written notice from FDA that it does "not object" to the use, which the FDA may later revoke for concerns about the safety of the substance. The bill would also require FDA to reassess at least 10 substances or classes of substances every three years (e.g., food additives, color additives, food contact substances). It would also allow FDA to impose civil monetary penalties for violations of the bill's provisions.
- On August 22, 2025, the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act (H.R. 5027) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. If passed as currently written it would prohibit the use of "covered color additives" in food. "Covered color additives" are defined as: Red No. 40; Red No. 3; Yellow No. 5; Yellow No. 6; Blue No. 1; Blue No. 2; Green No. 3; Orange B; Citrus Red 2; and Titanium Dioxide.
Subscribe and follow Food + Beverage industry insights from Alli Condra, Nancy Felsten, Kristi Wolff, and other Davis Wright Tremaine attorneys for future updates as food regulatory developments continue to unfold.
Previous Food Regulatory Updates from DWT:
Texas Legislature Goes Into MAHA Mode With Warning Label Bill
Flurry of Activity from FDA in the First Four Months of 2025
Four Food Industry Insights, From RFK to FDA and SNAP to Tariffs