On October 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit struck down certain parts of USDA’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, including the exemption for highly refined foods in which modified genetic material is undetectable. The decision remands the invalidated portions of the regulations to USDA for revision and could result in a
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Invalidates USDA’s Exemption for Highly Refined Foods Under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard
Recent Developments in Pet Food and Animal Feed Law & Regulation
The current Congressional session has seen the introduction of bipartisan legislation that, if enacted, would dramatically change the regulatory landscape for pet food and animal feed products. The reintroduced Pet Food Uniform Regulatory Reform Act (PURR Act) would make sweeping changes to the regulatory framework for dog and cat food
Continue Reading Recent Developments in Pet Food and Animal Feed Law & RegulationTexas Also Enacts Bans on Certain Ingredients in School Meals; Similar Louisiana Bill Progresses
Yesterday, Texas governor Greg Abbott signed into law S.B. 25, which requires food products containing any of 40+ specified ingredients to bear a warning label. This follows Texas’s enactment of S.B. 314 in late May, which prohibits Texas school districts and open-enrollment charter schools from providing free or reduced-price meals that contain any of 17+ specified ingredients. As of the date of this writing, Louisiana S.B. 14, which would impose (1) disclosure requirements for any food product sold in the state that contains specified ingredients, and (2) a ban on the use of certain ingredients in school meals, is sitting on the governor’s desk. It will become law if he signs it or takes no action by June 25. These actions are part of a larger trend of increased scrutiny of food and color additives, as we previously reported and which is a significant feature of the Make America Healthy Again (“MAHA”) Commission’s Assessment released on May 22, 2025.
Texas S.B. 25
S.B. 25 requires human food products containing any of 40+ specified ingredients to bear the following warning label: “WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.” Violators may be subject to a fine not to exceed $50,000 per day for each distinct food product in violation of the requirement.
The ingredients subject to the warning label requirement are the FD&C colors (i.e., Blue Dye No. 1, Red Dye No. 40, etc.) and numerous other ingredients including bleached flour, bromated flour, azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), potassium bromate, and propylparaben. Although the sweeteners aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame potassium (as well as high fructose corn syrup) were listed in earlier drafts of the bill, they are not included in the bill ultimately signed into law.
The warning requirement will apply only to food product labels “developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027.” Thus, it appears that food labels in use or even just copyrighted before that date could continue to be used for extended periods of time beyond that date.Continue Reading Texas Also Enacts Bans on Certain Ingredients in School Meals; Similar Louisiana Bill Progresses
FDA Seeks Public Input on Process for Human Food Export Certification Lists
On November 8, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a notice of request for information (RFI) regarding the agency’s current approach to providing export certification in the form of lists (export lists) for human food products. The RFI seeks to learn more about U.S. exporters’ experiences and the challenges they face related to meeting export listing requirements of other countries and FDA’s certification processes for export lists. FDA will use this information to inform the continuing development of its export list program for human foods.
Background
Firms exporting products from the United States are often asked by foreign customers or foreign governments to supply a “certification” for products FDA regulates. In many cases, a foreign government may be seeking official assurance that the product can be marketed in the U.S. or otherwise meets specific U.S. requirements. A foreign government also may require export certification as part of the process to register or import a product into that country. For the importation of certain products, some countries require export certification in the form of inclusion on a list of establishments that the competent authority in the exporting country has certified as complying with applicable food safety requirements.
Under FDA’s Export Certification Program for FDA-regulated human food products, the agency provides an “export certification” in the form of an export certificate or export list.[1] FDA’s export certification provides the agency’s official attestation concerning a product’s regulatory status, based upon available information at the time FDA issues the certification. In addition, as of August 2024, FDA has established export lists that cover 19 categories of food products for Chile, China, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
FDA is authorized under section 801(e)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act to charge a fee of up to $175 for each written export certification that the agency issues within 20 days of receipt of the request for certification. The agency does not currently charge fees for food export lists, but is considering implementing fees to offset the associated operational costs.Continue Reading FDA Seeks Public Input on Process for Human Food Export Certification Lists
FDA Issues Final Guidance on Demonstrating Effectiveness of Anthelmintics in Dogs
June 27, 2024, Covington Alert
On June 25, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) announced that it has finalized Guidance for Industry (GFI) #276, Effectiveness of Anthelmintics: Specific Recommendations for Products Proposed for the Prevention of Heartworm Disease in Dogs (Final Guidance). The Final Guidance replaces CVM’s draft guidance issued in November 2022. While CVM’s core recommendations remain the same, the Final Guidance clarifies the discussion and recommendations related to geographic locations from which Dirofilaria immitis (D. immitis) larvae used in trials should be sourced, laboratory dose confirmation studies, and field effectiveness studies for products intended to prevent heartworm disease. CVM’s stated overarching goal in making the revisions is to better align GFI #276 with current technology and veterinary epidemiology, including available diagnostic methodology. Drug sponsors who deviate from these recommendations are encouraged to discuss the deviations with CVM.
Background
On May 24, 2018, FDA published a Federal Register Notice requesting public input on possible alternative approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of heartworm disease prevention products for dogs. On its webpage announcing the final guidance, FDA explained that it asked for public input because of reports of lack of effectiveness and certain limitations of the effectiveness studies conducted to support product approval. FDA’s then-current recommendation for demonstrating the effectiveness of a new animal drug intended to prevent heartworm disease was for sponsors to conduct two laboratory dose confirmation studies and one multi-site field effectiveness study under the principles of Good Clinical Practice. FDA specifically requested input on the population level effectiveness endpoint, exposure to infective D. immitis larvae in field studies, outcome assessment in field studies, and laboratory study designs.Continue Reading FDA Issues Final Guidance on Demonstrating Effectiveness of Anthelmintics in Dogs