US F&B industry and political leaders clash over how to Make America Healthy Again

A Republican senator’s push to close loopholes in food ingredient oversight is colliding with industry efforts to block state-level regulations — exposing a rift within the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. 

Republican Senator Roger Marshall’s “Better Food Disclosure Act of 2025” would require food companies to report all ingredients to the FDA, fundamentally changing how the agency oversees substances classified as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS).

But the Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT) association — a coalition of large F&B corporations, commodity trade associations, and agricultural organizations formed this year — says the bill would hinder consumer clarity and complicate the already complex web of state laws, raising costs for producers.

AFIT was launched to position industry interests alongside MAHA, which has encouraged a flurry of state-level legislative changes, including bans on synthetic food dyes and other potentially harmful additives. 

These changes have created a patchwork of laws that disrupts supply chains nationwide. AFIT is seeking to control this tide by pushing for unified ingredient and labeling standards at the federal level to prevent state-level divergence. 

But consumer advocacy groups say AFIT’s mission is less about transparency than protecting corporate profits. “Let’s be clear, this has nothing to do with transparency,” says Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior VP for government affairs. “This is about protecting corporate profits and keeping consumers in the dark about toxic chemicals in their food.”

The EWG describes AFIT as a “front group,” whose launch “marks the latest push by food and chemical giants to strip states of their ability to protect families from dangerous additives.”

Closing the GRAS loophole

Marshall’s bill, unveiled last week alongside several other senators, would fundamentally change how the FDA oversees food ingredients, especially those classified as GRAS.

Currently, companies can self-determine an ingredient’s GRAS status and voluntarily notify the FDA, creating a “GRAS loophole” where many substances enter the market without FDA review or public disclosure. 

Marshall’s bill would enforce mandatory reporting for all GRAS substances, including those already in use, which must be publicly listed within two years of enactment. If a substance is not on this FDA list or under review, it would be deemed unsafe and illegal to market.A Senate bill to close the GRAS loophole ignites a debate between health advocates and the food industry over federal versus state ingredient regulations.

Marshall’s framing positions his bill as consumer protection, though industry groups argue the mandatory reporting requirements would create bureaucratic gridlock without improving safety. 

Marshall’s bill also seeks stricter oversight while protecting individual state-level advancements — flying in the face of AFIT’s desire for a single, unified national system that supersedes any state-level differences.

“While we appreciate Senator Marshall’s efforts, AFIT is focused on advocating for a more comprehensive solution,” the association says in a statement. “This standard should include MAHA-aligned provisions such as GRAS, front-of-package, and QR code reforms that are supported by the vast majority of Americans.”

Following the bill’s launch, AFIT took out a six-figure advertising campaign using recent poll results that showed an overwhelming number of voters in swing districts believe ingredient regulation and labeling should be handled nationally rather than on a state-by-state basis. 

In a statement to Food Ingredients First, AFIT senior advisor Julie Gunlock says: “AFIT was formed because every American deserves the same ingredient regulation and labeling, no matter their ZIP code. We are working to support federal action that includes GRAS reforms, front-of-package labeling reforms, and QR code reforms because that is what Americans are demanding and we stand ready to work with policymakers on a solution that will benefit the entire country.”

The preemption debate

AFIT has criticized the bill chiefly because it lacks a federal preemption provision that would prevent states from continuing to enact their own, often more stringent, food ingredient regulations. Without preemption, the industry faces conflicting state laws that create confusion, elevate costs, and complicate compliance.

The absence of federal preemption in Marshall’s bill means companies could face California banning an ingredient while Texas permits it, forcing separate supply chains and reformulations for different markets. 

This issue mirrors conflicts in other industries: tobacco regulation explicitly preserves state authority to impose stricter rules beyond FDA standards, while cannabis has faced years of state-federal regulatory chaos.

The question is whether food safety follows the tobacco model — federal baseline with room for state innovation — or whether industry succeeds in securing national uniformity that blocks stricter local action. 

California’s Prop 65 warnings and Washington’s restrictions on PFAS in food packaging show how states have outpaced FDA action, forcing companies into costly reformulations or regional product variations.

As the Better Food Disclosure Act advances, how it reconciles these competing interests could reshape the landscape of food ingredient transparency and safety regulation in the US.