The FDA Wants to Know What's in Your Food. Here's Why That's a Big Deal.
On August 10, 2026, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a new rule that would require food companies to tell the agency about every ingredient they add to food under a system called GRAS, which stands for "Generally Recognized As Safe." Right now, companies can decide on their own that an ingredient is safe — based on scientific research or common use — without letting the FDA know. The new rule would close that loophole (The Guardian). If the rule becomes final, it would cover both new ingredients and ones already on store shelves. The FDA listed the proposal as a priority for 2026 (FDA).
GRAS dates back to 1958. Back then, Congress created it as a shortcut: if an ingredient was already widely understood to be safe, like salt or vinegar, it shouldn't need a long government approval process. Think of it like a fast lane at airport security — if you're a known, low-risk traveler, you skip the full screening. But over the years, that fast lane became the main road. Most new substances added to the US food supply started going through GRAS instead of the formal review process. Companies could hire their own experts, review their own studies, and decide an ingredient was safe, all without telling the FDA. The proposed rule would end that.
Acting FDA commissioner Kyle Diamantas leads the agency under Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made reforming the food system a central goal of his time in office. The GRAS proposal faces legal questions that the current voluntary system does not. In 2021, a federal judge ruled that the FDA had the authority to create a voluntary GRAS notification system. But a mandatory system is legally different, and the agency will need to navigate that distinction.
The GRAS rule also comes as the Trump administration has again delayed defining "ultra-processed foods," promising more information later (The Guardian). HHS and the US Department of Agriculture did submit a proposed definition aimed at "creating a stronger foundation for future federal nutrition research," but no final definition has been issued. Kennedy had promised a definition by April 2026. In April 2026, Diamantas admitted the difficulty, saying "a definition for ultra-processed foods is really hard" (The Guardian).
The delay comes down to a basic problem: scientists don't agree on what ultra-processed foods actually are. In academic studies, ultra-processed food is defined as industrial formulations made with substances never or rarely used in home kitchens, like high-fructose corn syrup (NIH). Health experts describe them as foods or drinks made with processing techniques, additives, and industrial ingredients, mostly containing little whole food (Reuters). About 70% of packaged products in the US food supply are foods often considered ultra-processed (FDA).
The FDA and USDA have been working on a definition for over a year. On July 25, 2025, they asked the public for data to help create one (Federal Register). Other food-chemical rules are moving forward. The FDA recently extended the public comment period for its review of certain chemicals in the food supply by 30 days, with comments now accepted through July 26, 2026 (FDA). In February 2026, the FDA said it would consider a petition to revoke the safety status of dozens of processed refined carbohydrates (Reuters). On July 22, 2026, the FDA issued a final order revoking the authorized use of Orange B, a color additive in food, and proposed revoking other outdated color additive approvals (FDA).
The broader picture is one of a food regulatory system being rebuilt piece by piece, where some parts move and others get stuck. The GRAS proposal is specific: it targets a clear legal gap with a clear fix. The ultra-processed food definition, on the other hand, faces a problem that comes before regulation — you can't regulate something you can't define. Without a settled definition, rules to label, restrict, or tax ultra-processed products have nothing to aim at. The FDA's own regulatory agenda also lists a proposed 2026/2027 rulemaking about dietary supplement ingredients (FDA), showing that the scope of food-ingredient rulemaking under this administration goes well beyond GRAS.
For food companies, the GRAS rule would mean going back and notifying the FDA about ingredients already in the food supply — a process that could bring previously hidden safety data to light. A mandatory system would also give the FDA a complete list of GRAS ingredients for the first time. Whether the agency has the staff and resources to review all those notifications is a question the proposal doesn't answer. And because a 2021 court ruling only approved the voluntary system, the mandatory version will likely face a legal challenge once finalized. The legal argument for why the two systems are different will be at the center of any lawsuit.
