This month’s News Bites reflects an ongoing need for clarity across the food system. Whether it’s consumers seeking clarity on what foods qualify as healthy, state legislators proposing clearer language for food-safety policies amid a bare-boned FDA workforce or a new Dietary Guidelines release sparking immediate debate over the lack of evidence-based support for some of recommendations, one theme remains: confusion persists.
How consumers define ‘healthy’ is shifting – and brands must respond
According to FDA’s updated definition of “healthy,” foods must meet certain nutrient-density criteria, while added sugars, saturated fat and sodium remain limited. Although the standard is voluntary, it gives brands an opportunity to tighten the accuracy of on-pack claims – including clarifying the actual content of digestible protein in a product. A product that contains 10 grams of protein, for example, those 10 grams must be digestible. Yet consumers remain unsure how to assess the healthfulness of packaged foods.
Eight in 10 consumers in 2025 reported uncertainty about what products qualify as healthy due to shifting nutritional information – compared to seven in 10 in 2022, according to the International Food Information Council’s (IFIC) 2025 Food & Health survey.
Dietitians and healthcare professionals ranked as the most trusted sources with food and health information. Only 15% of respondents said they trust government agencies “a lot,” and 13% say they don’t trust the government at all for health inquiries, according to IFIC.
For brands, the challenge ahead is to develop more nuanced messaging around calorie sources and key macronutrients, especially fat, fiber and protein.
Read the full story here: What ‘healthy’ means to Americans is changing, and so should marketing
Patchwork food safety legislation: Confusing or necessary?
A growing patchwork of state laws governing food-additive safety is adding another layer of nutrition confusion for stakeholders. Food safety policy has historically been led by FDA as a way to create a uniform standards that allow for companies to distribute their products across the country. With the momentum from the Make America Healthy Again agenda – which promotes cleaner ingredient labels and the removal of synthetic food chemicals – critics argue federal oversight remains too slow.
Another layer adding to the increase in patchwork food safety legislation is mass layoffs across federal departments, especially in those entities connected to the food supply. The most notable departure was former HHS Deputy Commissioner Jim Jones’ abrupt resignation last year, following widespread layoffs of thousands of HHS employees. An increasing number of states are creating their own food safety legislations around ingredients and additives, citing a need to deliver tangible legislation that improves the food supply and Americans’ health.
As a result, more states are creating their own rules for ingredients and additives, citing the need for concrete, timely action to protect public health.
Recently, California, which is no stranger to drafting and implementing its own food safety policies, is challenging FDA’s self-affirmed Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway for food additives. Assemblymember Dawn Addis introduced AB 2034 last week which would overhaul how certain food ingredients are disclosed and reviewed in the state, particularly through self-affirmed GRAS. Companies using unapproved food additives – or ingredients supported only by an FDA “no questions” letter – would be required to submit detailed safety documentation to the California Department of Public Health. These notices would be added to a publicly accessible database for regulators, researchers and consumers.
While the self-affirmed GRAS pathway is still in place, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has publicly discussed eliminating it. While the verdict is out on how the federal agency will navigate the self-affirmed GRAS process, states like California are developing their own policies, prompting mixed reactions. Supporters say state action is necessary when federal oversight falls short, particularly regarding chemicals with limited safety data. Critics argue state-level bans would raise food costs, confuse consumers and hinder interstate commerce.
How California approaches food chemicals certainly has impact on other states and the federal government. After the state passed the landmark California Food Safety Act in 2023 – banning brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propyl paraben and Red Dye No. 3 – states like Pennsylvania proposed similar bans. Other states like West Virginia and Maryland declined to pursue state restrictions and deferred to federal food safety evaluations.
Meanwhile, some controversial additives have made it to the federal chopping block. Last year FDA rescinded its authorization of red dye No. 3 for use in foods and ingested drugs, underscoring FDA’s speed and processes at evaluating these additives for the US food supply.
Read full story here: A new California bill could change how food ingredients get FDA green light
Critics call for revisions to the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines
If consumer trust in government agencies around food and nutrition is already strained, the newly released 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans may not deliver the clarity stakeholders hoped. The new guidelines recommend nearly doubling animal protein like red meat (compared to previous editions) and increasing full-fat dairy intake. At the same time, it recommends limiting saturated fat, which critics say is contradictory information given the high saturated fat levels in those foods which could increase the risk of diet-related illnesses. The DGA also discourages processed foods while emphasizing fortified products to deliver key nutrients. While there is currently no federally uniform definition of ultra-processed foods, it is clear that the debate is nuanced.
Concerns about the guidelines are not new. In the past, the DGA’s independent scientific committee’s (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) involvement with multinational CPG brands and industry trade groups faced scrutiny over conflicts of interest. Critics say these industry ties could influence recommendations that ultimately shape major federal nutrition programs, including SNAP and school meals. Other federal frameworks – such as GRAS notices – have faced similar criticism regarding industry influence.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine argues that the DGA is shaped not only by scientific evidence but also by industry and political pressures. On Jan. 8, one day after the public release of the DGA, PCRM filed a petition to HHS and USDA requesting a withdrawal and reissue of the guidelines citing “rampant industry influence.”
CSPI and the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law published a commentary in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet warn DGA’s recommendations to increase animal protein and subsequently saturated fat risk could undermine public-health messaging. The authors also pointed out the lack of emphasis on plant-based proteins and unsaturated fats, which was a departure from earlier versions of the DGAC’s scientific report.
Because DGA’s recommendations guide major nutrition-education efforts and federally funding programs – many of which are already facing significant budget cuts, including last year’s SNAP and WIC crisis – the stakes are high.
Read the full story here: Why the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines need a ‘mulligan’ – and how to fix them
