With some controversial media coverage of the 2026 Funding Bill, TAG took a deep dive itself to determine the real extent of the changes and impact on the food industry.
It is interesting that a number of very specific food regulatory provisions were slipped into the 2026 funding bill (H.R. 5371) enacted on November 12, 2025, to reopen the government. However, some of the media coverage (e.g., that the legislation “Kills Food Safety Rules”) is rather exaggerated considering that many of the legislation’s food provisions simply further actions previously undertaken or proposed by FDA.
Whether or not the legislation’s provisions are best for the food industry is certainly up for discussion, but that fact that they are being decried as making food less safe is not fact and not needed when US consumer confidence is already at a low.
Following are TAG’s takes on the provisions and their actuality:
- Certain Produce. Section 735, prohibiting the use of funding to enforce the Produce Safety Rule or its proposed agricultural water provision, has been called out in some articles. But the provision relates only to entities that grow, harvest, pack, or hold wine grapes, hops, pulse crops, or almonds for which FDA had already been exercising enforcement discretion and exploring options for exempting the commodities. Additionally, the pre-harvest ag water provisions of the FSMA rule had been a subject of controversy since its publication with FDA publishing a final rule in 2024 that provided for more flexibility through risk-based assessments. Thus, little was changed except the granting of the exemptions being considered.
- Traceability. The legislation specifies that no funds may be used to administer or enforce the FSMA 204 Traceability Rule. However, reading the full provision (Section 780), shows that these funds may not be used prior to July 20, 2028, simply codifying the FDA August 6 proposal to extend industry compliance to this date. Neither the FDA extension nor the funding bill notes any changes to the rule, it just pushes the requirements back to enable the industry more time to better meet the challenges of traceability and potentially enable the industry to develop a fully interoperable system, such as that being developed by the Partnership for Food Traceability, with which TAG is involved. Additionally, to comply with the rule’s prohibition on FDA requiring product tracking to the case level, the legislation requires FDA to engage with industry to determine flexibilities for satisfying the rule’s lot-level tracking requirement and provide industry with such recommendations within 180 days of enactment. FDA is also to provide industry with assistance in how to handle food waste recovery, reclamation, intra-company transfers, and customer returns under the rule. As resources allow, the agency is to initiate a series of hypothetical data intake exercises to test the capabilities of its Product Tracing System and identify technical difficulties. Thus, once again, there is no food safety impact as the extension was already pending and, in fact, FDA was given further responsibility to work with industry on certain provisions of the rule, which TAG sees as a good thing.
- Lm in RTE. With both the FDA and USDA currently taking a zero-tolerance policy for Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in ready-to-eat (RTE) foods, the provision (Section 752) denying funding to FDA to issue or promote any new guidelines or regulations for low-risk RTE foods for Lm is interesting. Again having a caveat that funding cannot be used until the FDA considers the available new science in developing CPG Guidance regarding Lm in low-risk foods, this seems to essentially say that the current zero tolerance in RTE foods will stand until and unless the science says otherwise. While zero tolerance may not be necessary for all low-risk RTE foods, maintaining that level certainly does not put food safety at greater risk.
- Pet Foods. The legislation also potentially increases the safety of pet foods, as Section 785 requires that, within 120 days of the bills enactment, FDA submit a report to Congress on the cost and impact of issuing a proposed rule and implementing guidance and enforcement for pet and animal food labeling and ingredient standards. The report is to provide for harmonization across state and Federal regulatory bodies and include guideline development timelines, proposed regulations, resource and personnel needs, and any additional authority needed to implement the proposed changes.
Other provisions of interest to the food industry:
- Ultra-processed. Interestingly, while the hampering of ultra-processed foods regulation was a focus of much media, ultra-processed was never mentioned in the legislation. Rather, the media-referenced Section (775) prohibits the use of funds for FDA guidance or regulation development related to long-term, population-wide sodium reduction actions until an assessment is completed on the impact of the short-term sodium reduction targets. While this certainly works against the MAHA desires to limit sodium as a part of an ultra-processed food rule, it seems to be of benefit to both the industry and consumers in that long-term actions cannot be implemented without some research into potential short-term target impacts.
- Healthy. For implied healthy claims on food labeling, Section 783 of the legislation seems primarily intended to reinforce that federal legislation overrides that of the states. Essentially, until the February 25, 2028 compliance date of the federal “Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims; Definition of Term ‘Healthy,’” manufacturers can continue to comply with the previous federal requirements. Additionally, manufacturers are not to be directly or indirectly subjected to any related state law requirements unless they are the same as the federal requirements. Generally speaking, TAG’s take is that the food industry can never manage compliance with multiple state requirements that are all different.
Although there continue to be issues with federal funding of the FDA, which will certainly not improve in 2026, it is not the specific provisions of this legislation that are most likely to impact food safety, but the general cuts in funding, personnel, and expertise. The legislation does make it clear, though, that this Administration is heavily focused on federal law overriding state law, but it is unlikely that the states (i.e., California) will go down without a fight.
