The FDA Review and Evaluation for Safe, Healthy and Affordable Foods Act of 2026, known as the FRESH Act, intends to reshape how FDA regulates food ingredients.
Introduced by Rep. Kat Cammack (R‑Fla.), the bill arrives at a volatile time for food policy marked by rising concern over chemical additives, patchwork state bans, significant FDA staff cuts and mounting industry pressure for regulatory certainty and transparency.
Supporters frame the bill as modernization rooted in pragmatism, while critics warn it threatens to lock in existing structural weaknesses before policy can change.
What does the FRESH Act propose?
The FRESH Act amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in three key ways.
First, it creates a new statutory category called “common food ingredients” that are explicitly excluded from being treated as food additives.
The bill defines “common food ingredients” as an ingredient that was ordinarily consumed or sold as a food on or before Jan. 1, 1958. This may include fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, algae, meat, poultry, fish, grain ingredients, milk from lactating animals, honey, traditional bacterial cultures, and any substance derived from such ingredients.
Second, the bill proposes to replace the current voluntary Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) notification framework with a mandatory notification and public registry.
Third, it clarifies FDA’s post‑market authority to reassess and revoke GRAS status if safety concerns arise. If the legislation passes, FDA would have 90 days to review safety claims and companies would have up to two years to phase out an ingredient deemed unsafe unless the removal is urgent.
The FRESH Act does not emerge in isolation. Sen. Roger Marshall (R‑Kan.) has advanced parallel efforts to overhaul the GRAS system in favor of uniform national standards, driven in part by growing patchwork state-by-state chemical bans.
‘Common food ingredient’ provision raises questions on FDA’s already limited capabilities
Because substances excluded from the food additive definition do not require FDA pre‑market approval, some argue this provision creates sweeping exemptions rooted in historical use rather than modern toxicological evaluation.
Critics including the Environmental Working Group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, US Right to Know and Children’s Health Defense argue that the FRESH Act’s definition of “common food ingredients” based on pre‑1958 consumption rather than current (and emerging) toxicological evaluation, narrows FDA’s pre‑market authority and future reform options, particularly when the agency already is stretched thin.
Industry aims to reduce confusion and regulatory fragmentation
Driven by the gap between federal and state legislation surrounding food additive safety, some of the largest consumer packaged goods companies launched a coordinated lobbying effort.
Last October, major CPG players including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills and Nestlé, among others, formed a coalition called Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT).
AFIT presents itself as a consumer‑oriented coalition calling for “one, uniform, consumer‑friendly standard” for ingredient regulation centered on FDA authority.
Its published policy priorities include GRAS reform, national labeling standards and federal preemption of state food‑safety laws to reduce confusion and regulatory division.
Industry initiatives are self-serving, critics say
Consumer and public‑health organizations challenged AFIT’s framing.
Groups including the Environmental Working Group and US Right to Know, and Children’s Health Defense argue the coalition functions as an industry front designed to block more aggressive state action.
EWG is among the most outspoken critics, warning that AFIT’s push for federal preemption would “undermine existing state protections and prevent future safeguards from being enacted.”
Support for the FRESH Act
Supporters of the FRESH Act include FDA leadership, which has acknowledged longstanding gaps in its presence within the food supply and has prioritized greater GRAS transparency, post‑market review authority and the creation of a public substances registry.
Groups like Alliance for Natural Health USA recognize that the GRAS framework needs more reform, not elimination.
The FRESH Act also aligns with broader HHS objectives under the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, which emphasizes food and nutrition policy as a path to improved public health.
Opposition to the FRESH Act
In a recent letter opposing the legislation, EWG warned that the FRESH Act would “topple an already fragile food chemical safety system.”
EWG argues the bill permanently removes large categories of ingredients from FDA pre‑market review, shifts the agency toward a largely reactive (vs. proactive) post‑market enforcement model, and reduces incentives for companies to determine safety before products reach consumers. The group cautions that once these statutory carve‑outs are enacted, reversing them would be extraordinarily difficult.
Why the timing of the FRESH Act is critical
Since 2023, states such as California have moved quickly to ban or restrict food additives, often in the absence of swift federal action. These state initiatives create regulatory pressure on FDA and industry.
Supporters argue the FRESH Act stabilizes an overstretched FDA. Opponents argue the legislation risks freezing a oversight system in place just as momentum for stronger oversight builds.
Supporters see pragmatic modernization. Critics see institutionalized risk. What happens next will help determine not just how ingredients are regulated, but who gets to decide what “safe” means in America’s food supply.
The bill will be among many food policy proposals discussed during an upcoming meeting by the Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce April 29.
