by Peter Barclay

For years, I’ve watched the global food system bend under the weight of rapid innovation — precision fermentation, engineered plant proteins, novel processing technologies, and a flood of new ingredients entering our diets faster than regulators can keep up. But right now, something genuinely historic is unfolding in the United States, and it matters far more to New Zealand and Australia than most people realise.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is preparing to overhaul how food ingredients enter the market by making GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) notifications mandatory. It’s one of the most consequential regulatory shifts in decades. It signals the end of an era in which companies could introduce new food chemicals without telling regulators or the public.

The proposed rule — now delayed to December 2026 — would require companies to formally notify the FDA before any ingredient can be considered GRAS. Every notice would be published publicly. Every safety claim would be on record. Every ingredient would finally have a paper trail.

For Whole Food Living readers, especially those following the rise of precision fermentation and alternative proteins, this is not just bureaucratic housekeeping. It’s a tectonic shift in how transparency, safety, and innovation coexist.

The US system was devised well before the days of synthetic biology. Under current US law, companies can self‑certify an ingredient as GRAS and immediately sell it. No notification. No public documentation. No FDA involvement. The exemption was written in 1958 for everyday staples like salt, vinegar, and yeast.

But today, GRAS is the pathway through which almost every new food chemical enters the US market.

A 2025 Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis found that 99% of food chemicals introduced since 2000 entered the market through GRAS self‑affirmation rather than formal FDA review.

Low public visibility

That includes many ingredients central to the plant‑based and alt‑protein movement such as:

• Precision‑fermented proteins
• Mycoprotein strains
• Plant‑protein isolates

These products reach US shelves with little public visibility into the evidence behind them.

The FDA’s proposal flips the current model on its head:

• No ingredient can be considered GRAS without a formal notice.
• All notices become public.
• Companies must submit evidence that will be open to scrutiny.

It’s a long‑overdue tightening of a system that has allowed thousands of novel food chemicals to enter the market with minimal oversight.

But this is where things get politically messy: a draft House bill, the FRESH and Affordable Foods Act, could weaken GRAS requirements by reducing what companies must disclose and limiting state‑level powers to restrict harmful additives.

EWG’s Melanie Benesh puts it bluntly:

“Americans deserve stronger protections from harmful food chemicals, not more delays and fewer safeguards.”

Why this matters down under

It’s tempting to treat the US regulatory drama as something happening “over there.” But in food, as with many ohter things, there is no “over there.” The US is one of the world’s largest food markets, and New Zealand and Australia are two of the world’s major food‑producing nations. Our regulatory systems are deeply intertwined with global supply chains.

Here’s what the US shift means for us:

• Ingredient suppliers in NZ and Australia exporting to the US will face new documentation and transparency requirements.
• Multinational plant‑based brands operating here often rely on GRAS determinations for US market entry — their regulatory burden will increase.
• Consumers and health advocates gain clearer visibility into the safety evidence behind emerging food technologies.
• FSANZ regulators watch US policy closely; major US reforms often ripple into future local standards.

And crucially: the US is tightening oversight at the exact moment our own system is under review.

Updating the labelling system

In New Zealand and Australia, FSANZ is considering making the Health Star Rating (HSR) system mandatory — a system that has struggled to attract voluntary uptake and has been criticised for rewarding ultra‑processed foods.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about concerns raised by Australia’s Professor Nicholas Chartres, who argued that the current HSR algorithm risks embedding unhealthy products deeper into the food system.

So, when Health Coalition Aotearoa released its Prevention Brief 2026 at breakfast meeting on July 20, I took an opportunity to speak with its chairman, Professor Boyd Swinburn, to understand why the coalition still supports the HSR system.

“We do recognise that it’s far away from international best standards, and so something’s gotta change,” he said. “It’s been in place for a decade and hasn’t really delivered what it’s supposed to. We believe that, with the political context — you know, with Australia and New Zealand, which is a hell of a job to manage — the first task is to get it into a mandatory space.”

He further explained that while warning labels (like those used in Latin America) are more effective, the current political reality is that regulators are more likely to modify the existing system than replace it entirely.

But won’t this only embed bad products as Professor Chartres warns?

“That will depend on the algorithm, Professor Swinburn continued. “At the moment, I think it does, but if ultra-processed foods are screwed down in the algorithm, meaning you can’t get more than a 2 or something like that, then maybe we’ll make progress. But it’s been incredibly political, and we have made no real progress on it over the last 10 years.”

Essentially, the Health Coalition’s position is that it’s better to keep the system we have, and make worthwhile tweaks, than to abandon it altogether.

“Politically, getting something better over the line means changing what we’ve already got… If there are groups, such as yourselves or others, calling hard for much more serious international best‑standard food labels, that’s good. We need all the pressure we can get.”

Two systems, one global problem

What’s striking is how similar the challenges are across the Pacific:

• In the US, GRAS allowed thousands of novel ingredients to enter the food supply without scrutiny.
• In NZ and Australia, the HSR system has allowed ultra‑processed foods to earn stars they arguably don’t deserve.

Both systems were built for a different era — one where food was simpler, supply chains were shorter, and innovation moved slowly.

Today, innovation moves at the speed of software. Regulation does not, and somewhere in that gap, public trust erodes.

Transparency matters most

The plant‑based and alt‑protein sectors thrive on innovation, but innovation must be paired with public trust. Mandatory GRAS notifications could:

• Improve consumer confidence
• Level the playing field for companies already investing in rigorous safety science
• Reduce the risk of harmful additives slipping through unnoticed
• Encourage more open scientific dialogue about new food technologies

The same logic applies here at home. Whether it’s GRAS in the US or HSR in Australasia, transparency is not a bureaucratic burden, wokeism or nanny state — it’s a public‑health necessity.

Global‑grade regulation

As New Zealand and Australia reconsider their own food‑labelling and ingredient‑assessment frameworks, the US shift should serve as a wake‑up call. The world’s largest food market is acknowledging that voluntary systems don’t work. That secrecy erodes trust. That innovation without oversight is not sustainable.

We should listen.

Because whether you’re a precision‑fermentation startup in Auckland, a plant‑protein manufacturer in Melbourne, or a consumer trying to make sense of what’s on the supermarket shelf, the message is the same:

Transparency is good for public health, good for industry integrity, and essential for the future of sustainable food.