From canned tuna and bottled water to plant-based milk and beef, food manufacturers and industry associations largely concur that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) standards of identity for food products are outdated and hinder innovation. On Friday, FDA regulators held a public hearing to gather feedback on the agency’s efforts to modernize these regulations, which define the characteristics of hundreds of food and beverage items. While nearly 30 groups that participated in the two-hour comment session had varying opinions on specific updates, a consensus emerged that change is essential.
According to the FDA, the purpose of these standards is “to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.” Many standards of identity were established by the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which created legally enforceable food standards. In that era, poor-quality packaged foods were prevalent, leading the law to define what ingredients could be included in specific products. Susan Mayne, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, began the hearing by emphasizing the agency’s commitment to providing consumers with the information necessary to make healthy food choices. She noted that the FDA is “close” to proposing a new definition of “healthy” and is diligently working on the “natural” claim. The latest initiative aims to modernize standards of identity.
“We recognize that many standards were set decades ago and have not been recently revised to reflect changes in consumer expectations or opportunities for innovation, including the capacity to produce healthier foods,” Mayne stated. The FDA has been moving towards eliminating some of the more outdated standards of identity, having announced plans this spring to revoke long-standing requirements for frozen cherry pie and French dressing.
During the public comments, representatives from various sectors of the food industry acknowledged the importance of these standards for maintaining consumer trust but called for more lenient and flexible regulations to enable companies to develop new products. Betsy Booren, vice president of regulatory affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, argued for a horizontal approach, allowing for changes across different categories of standardized foods and timely updates. This flexible regulatory framework would enable the adoption of new technologies and foster innovation in areas currently constrained by existing laws, Booren added. She pointed out that the lack of clarity in current standards has led to increased state-level definitions of products, resulting in inconsistent regulations and consumer confusion. Several lawsuits have been filed in the past year as states like Arkansas and Mississippi introduced labeling laws for plant-based meats.
“Consumer expectations do not change when they cross state lines,” Booren remarked. “A clear, simple, and consistent national regulatory framework informed by risk-based science will enhance consumer trust.” Many participants agreed that innovation has been stifled by existing standards, including those related to canned tuna and flavored water. Mason Weeda, an attorney at OFW Law representing Bumble Bee Foods, noted that many FDA standards date back to the 1950s and that updates could facilitate industry adaptation to consumer demands. “The canned tuna standard only permits the use of one flavor, lemon oil, which does not allow tuna manufacturers to respond to changing consumer tastes,” he explained. “The FDA should adopt a horizontal approach that permits safe and suitable flavor ingredients across various standards.”
Ron Tanner, vice president of education, government, and industry relations at the Specialty Food Association, asserted that the need for modernization is evident. With members producing over 240,000 unique food products, Tanner emphasized that revisions to regulatory language should focus on clarity and simplicity regarding permissible names and terms, allowing for greater variation across products. For instance, while the FDA defines bottled water as having no added ingredients, Tanner pointed out that modern bottled water often contains ingredients like rosemary, lemon, honey, and vitamins, thus technically violating the FDA’s outdated standards.
“SFA members are the innovators in food, and many are pushing the boundaries in product consumption, flavor, packaging, and technology. For these companies, the standards of identity often hinder their ability to bring new products to market,” Tanner noted. Some representatives came to advocate for standards that do not yet exist. Betsy Ward, president and CEO of the USA Rice Federation, suggested a standard defining rice as grains harvested from rice plants. This standard would help clarify labeling as new products like riced cauliflower emerge. “Our goal is not to limit product development but to ensure that all products are clearly labeled and not misleading,” she stated.
The topic of plant-based products was a significant focus during the hearing. As expected, plant-based groups advocated for changes that would allow alternative products to use conventional terms like “milk,” while dairy and beef associations wanted these terms reserved for traditional products. Nichole Manu, a staff attorney at The Good Food Institute, expressed support for modernizing the standards but stressed that the FDA should ensure that plant-based dairy can continue to use traditional dairy terms. “Consumers are not seeking these products out of confusion; they want healthful, functional alternatives to cow’s milk products,” she said. When the FDA solicited comments on the use of dairy terms in plant-based foods last year, 76% of respondents favored allowing plant-based products to continue using the term “milk.”
However, not everyone at the hearing supported this change; some called for stronger enforcement. Anita MacMullan, director of the Food and Drug Protection Division at the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, stated that mislabeling is illegal and that if “milk” appears on a label, it should contain actual milk. “When the FDA chooses not to enforce the law, it undermines consumer trust in the agency and can jeopardize public health,” MacMullan asserted. “‘Milk’ has a clear definition and standard of identity established in regulation, and the FDA has a duty to enforce it.”
Some representatives from the dairy industry expressed a desire for modernization efforts to allow traditional products more room for innovation. Cary Frye, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at the International Dairy Foods Association, noted that dairy products account for a third of all food standards. She emphasized that regulations should preserve the fundamental nature of dairy while facilitating innovations such as high-pressure processing to extend the shelf life of milk products. However, the scrutiny was not limited to plant-based dairy alternatives. Allison Rivera, executive director of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, urged the FDA to establish new definitions and strict parameters around plant-based meat products, expressing concern that such products do not adhere to the same food safety or labeling standards. “NCBA is alarmed by fake meat products,” Rivera stated. “Many of these products present themselves as healthier alternatives to beef, using terms like ‘beefy,’ ‘veggie beef,’ or ‘just like beef,’ often making unverified claims in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage in the market.”
The agency is currently accepting written public comments on this issue until November 12. This initiative is part of the FDA’s multi-year nutrition innovation strategy, aimed at fostering new ideas for more nutritious foods, suggesting that it may take years before significant changes are implemented.
Additionally, as discussions around these standards evolve, it is important to consider factors such as calcium citrate reviews, which may play a role in consumer perceptions of new food products that seek to capitalize on health trends. The integration of such ingredients and their associated benefits could further influence the direction of regulatory updates in the food industry.