GRAS, additives, chemicals: Who should hold the authority? – Image for illustrative purposes only (Image credits: Unsplash)
The proposed FRESH Act has ignited fresh debate over who ultimately decides which chemicals and additives belong in American food. At its center lies a push for national standards that would limit the ability of individual states to impose stricter rules on substances like PFAS and heavy metals. This tension revives long-standing questions about whether uniform federal oversight serves consumers better than the varied protections states have developed in recent years.
The Preemption Standard at the Heart of the Dispute
One provision stands out for its potential reach. The bill would establish a national uniformity rule under which federal requirements on food additives, infant food, and contaminants would replace any conflicting state laws. Consumer advocates point out that states have frequently acted first on emerging risks, such as restrictions on certain forever chemicals in packaging and limits on heavy metals in baby food. They worry the change could remove an important layer of safeguards while federal reviews lag.
Industry representatives counter that a single set of rules prevents the kind of regulatory patchwork seen during the GMO labeling debates. Before Congress passed the 2016 national bioengineered food disclosure law, manufacturers faced dozens of differing state requirements that complicated production and raised costs. The same dynamic, they argue, now threatens to repeat itself with additives and contaminants if states continue to move independently.
Key Changes Proposed for GRAS Substances
The legislation introduces several updates to the Generally Recognized As Safe process. Companies would need to notify the FDA before using a new GRAS substance, and the agency would maintain a public registry of those conclusions. Review would be limited to 90 days, after which a substance would gain automatic approval if the FDA takes no action. Accredited scientific panels could also conduct reviews in place of direct agency evaluation, and most submitted safety data would remain confidential for 120 days.
These timelines and confidentiality rules have drawn criticism from groups concerned about transparency and thoroughness. Proponents maintain that the structure keeps decisions grounded in science rather than allowing 50 separate state interpretations to create inconsistent market conditions.
Adjustments to Food Additives and Chemical Phase-Outs
Another section redefines food additives under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Ingredients commonly consumed or sold as standalone foods before January 1, 1958, would fall outside the additive category, aligning with long-standing GRAS assumptions based on historical use. For chemicals later deemed unsafe, the bill grants manufacturers two years to reformulate products unless the FDA identifies an immediate health threat.
These measures aim to balance safety reviews with practical timelines for industry compliance. Critics contend the grace period and narrower additive definition could slow protections compared with faster state-level actions already in place in several jurisdictions.
| Aspect | Current State Approach | Proposed Under FRESH Act |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Authority | States can set stricter limits on chemicals and additives | Federal rules preempt state requirements |
| GRAS Review Timeline | Varies by state, often slower or more restrictive | 90-day FDA window or automatic approval |
| Chemical Removal | Immediate or short timelines in some states | Two-year phase-out unless imminent risk |
Practical Stakes for Everyday Food Choices
Food manufacturers operating across state lines would gain clearer compliance paths under the proposed framework. At the same time, the shift could reduce the pressure that state actions have historically placed on federal agencies to accelerate their own reviews. The result is a familiar federalism question: whether centralized standards deliver consistent safety or simply slow the pace of protection.
Observers note that adequate funding for the FDA could address many of the underlying delays without requiring preemption. Yet Congress has shown little appetite for such increases, leaving the current proposal as one attempt to resolve the resulting gaps. How the legislation ultimately balances these competing priorities will shape the ingredients available on grocery shelves for years to come.
