North American Food & Flavor Regulatory Update: September 16–30, 2026

The news digest contains news from official U.S., Canadian, and Mexican regulatory sources, federal/state materials, court records, and specialist food-law/industry coverage for September 16–30, 2026. The digest covers “food and flavor industry” broadly enough to capture ingredients, flavors/colors, additives, labeling, foodservice, pesticide residues, packaging, meat inspection, novel foods, and enforcement while excluding routine recalls unless they signaled a broader regulatory/enforcement development.

Fourteen material developments in the period are included in the digest. The U.S. accounted for most of the activity, just one significant Canadian novel-food authorization, and no comparably material Mexican food/flavor regulatory release dated within the requested window.

1. FDA issues the 2026 Food Code — September 17, U.S.

FDA released the 2026 Food Code, its biennial model framework used by state, local, tribal, and territorial authorities to regulate restaurants, grocery stores, institutional kitchens, and other retail-food establishments. Although the Food Code does not itself impose federal requirements on restaurants, jurisdictions routinely use it when adopting or revising their own rules, making changes important to foodservice companies and ingredient suppliers.

The 2026 edition introduces a requirement for establishments to maintain written employee-illness policies, creates an alternative cooling process, and permits double-gloving in specified circumstances. Other revisions cover allergen cross-contact, sanitizer temperatures, consumer advisories, food donations, specialty-mushroom hazards, dehydration and freeze-drying, vending-machine controls, waste receptacles, and definitions for food and mobile-food establishments. For flavor and ingredient companies selling into foodservice, the allergen and processing changes are particularly relevant because customers may eventually incorporate them into supplier specifications and operating procedures as jurisdictions adopt the new Code. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA — 2026 Food Code announcement

2. FDA retail-deli study points toward future food-safety interventions — September 16, U.S.

FDA published its Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Retail Food Store Delis report, based on observations collected from 2019–2022. While this is a research and policy document rather than a new regulation, FDA explicitly says the findings will help guide future retail-food initiatives, policies, targeted interventions, regulatory assistance, and its next data-collection cycle beginning in October 2026.

FDA found that establishments with a Certified Food Protection Manager acting as person in charge achieved significantly stronger food-safety-management-system scores. A well-developed management system was the strongest predictor of minimizing foodborne-illness risk factors. Improper time/temperature holding and poor personal hygiene were the most common areas of noncompliance, while inadequate cooking was least common. FDA simultaneously issued calls to action for regulators and industry. The findings are particularly relevant to deli, prepared-food, flavor/seasoning, sauce, meat, cheese and other suppliers whose products undergo substantial handling at retail. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA — Retail Deli Food-Safety Risk Factors Report

3. USDA launches $50 million initiative to expand state meat inspection — September 16, U.S.

USDA announced the Stand-Up Program, offering up to $50 million to help states establish or expand meat and poultry inspection programs operated in partnership with USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. Thirty-one states currently operate State Meat and Poultry Inspection programs, while 11 also participate in the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program.

The initiative responds to the high startup costs that can prevent states from developing inspection systems and is intended to expand processing options for small, very small, and midsized establishments. For food manufacturers, meat processors, seasoning/flavor suppliers and companies selling ingredients into meat applications, expansion of state inspection infrastructure could broaden the number of regulated processors able to enter or expand production. FSIS also outlined phased implementation of a new sampling approach, with district training scheduled for early 2027 and industry listening sessions planned. The development therefore combines regulatory-capacity expansion with changes in federal inspection and sampling practices. GovDelivery

USDA/FSIS — Stand-Up Program announcement

4. FDA restructures animal-food GRAS and food-additive review processes — September 22, U.S.

FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine completed a two-year evaluation of its Food Additive Petition and GRAS Notification programs for animal-food ingredients. The review included public comments, 14 external engagement sessions and internal FDA interviews. FDA says it will implement process improvements designed to make ingredient reviews faster and more predictable without changing the scientific standard applied to submissions.

A major concrete change is Program Policy and Procedures Manual 1244.3425, covering the Animal Food GRAS Notice Evaluation Timeline. The document provides greater transparency about review stages and increases interaction with submitters during the evaluation window. This matters to flavor, fermentation, enzyme, functional-ingredient and specialty-ingredient suppliers operating across both human and animal nutrition because regulatory-review timing frequently influences commercialization and investment decisions. FDA characterized the changes as procedural improvements rather than a relaxation of safety requirements, so companies should distinguish faster or more transparent reviews from changes in the substantive GRAS standard. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA — Animal Food Ingredient Review Program Changes

5. EPA and HHS establish new scientific partnership for glyphosate review — September 22, U.S.

EPA and HHS signed an interagency memorandum of understanding expanding scientific cooperation in EPA's ongoing glyphosate registration review under FIFRA. The agencies will exchange scientific information, identify research gaps and coordinate additional research into potential human-health effects. EPA retains sole legal authority over pesticide registration decisions, and the agreement itself does not create additional regulatory authority.

The significance for the food and agricultural supply chain lies in the potential influence on the evidentiary record underlying EPA's eventual glyphosate decision. Glyphosate is used extensively in crop production, meaning any future change in registration conditions, permitted uses or risk-management measures could flow through agricultural commodities into ingredient and food manufacturing supply chains. HHS resources involved in the collaboration can include scientific expertise across agencies such as FDA, CDC, NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program. At this stage, however, the MOU is a review-process development, not a restriction or prohibition on glyphosate use. US EPA

EPA — EPA/HHS Glyphosate Scientific Partnership

6. EPA extends glyphosate scientific-comment period — September 25, U.S.

Three days after announcing the EPA-HHS partnership, EPA extended the public-comment period concerning its glyphosate human-health open-literature search protocol by 60 days, moving the deadline to November 23, 2026. The literature-search process is designed to identify scientific studies that may become part of the evidence base for EPA's registration review.

For food manufacturers and agricultural ingredient suppliers, the extension is important because it expands the opportunity for researchers, growers, industry groups, public-health organizations and other stakeholders to submit scientific evidence potentially relevant to EPA's assessment. EPA originally released the literature-search material on August 25 with comments due September 24. The agency tied the extension to its newly expanded collaboration with HHS and its effort to broaden the scientific record. No glyphosate tolerance or permitted-use change resulted from the September action itself. Companies should therefore regard it as a procedural milestone in a potentially consequential pesticide reassessment rather than an immediate compliance change. US EPA

EPA — Glyphosate Comment Period Extension

7. FDA authorizes vitamin D2 inactive baker's yeast in additional foods — September 25, U.S.

FDA issued a final amendment to 21 CFR Part 172 allowing vitamin D2 inactive baker's yeast to be used as a vitamin D2 source in specified food categories. The rule responds to a food-additive petition from Lallemand and became effective September 25, 2026, with objections or hearing requests due October 26.

The ingredient is produced by exposing Saccharomyces cerevisiae to ultraviolet light, increasing conversion of naturally occurring ergosterol to vitamin D2, followed by heat inactivation. FDA concluded that it may be used, on a vitamin-D2 basis, in the same relevant applications and at the same levels authorized for vitamin D2 mushroom powder. The amendment creates a commercially meaningful additional fortification route, particularly for plant-based and vegan foods seeking non-animal vitamin D sources. For ingredient formulators, the action represents an actual expansion of permitted ingredient use—not merely guidance—and therefore is one of the period's most directly actionable regulatory developments. Federal Register Archive

Federal Register — Vitamin D2 Inactive Baker's Yeast Final Rule

8. Health Canada clears Rhiza mycoprotein as a novel food — September 25 coverage, Canada

Health Canada completed its novel-food assessment of Rhiza Mycoprotein, developed by The Better Meat Co., and notified the company that it had no objection to its food use in Canada. Rhiza consists of non-viable dehydrated mycelium biomass from a non-genetically modified strain of Neurospora crassa. The ingredient is intended as an alternative protein and dietary-fiber source in meat, poultry, seafood, meat alternatives and dairy analogues.

Health Canada evaluated manufacturing, composition, dietary exposure, nutrition, microbiological safety, toxicology, allergens, contaminants and other factors under Canada's Novel Foods framework. The agency reports that Rhiza contains approximately 45% protein and 30% dietary fiber and found no nutritional, microbiological, toxicological or allergenic safety concern under the proposed uses. Manufacturers remain responsible for ensuring associated additives and processing materials comply with Canada's Food and Drug Regulations and permitted-additive lists. This expands the regulatory pathway for fermentation-derived proteins in Canada's alternative-protein market. Canada

Health Canada — Rhiza Mycoprotein Novel Food Assessment

9. California creates first state-backed voluntary “Non-Ultraprocessed” certification — September 28, U.S.

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2244, establishing a state framework for a voluntary Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard and label. California describes it as the first U.S. state certification of its kind. The program is intended to give qualifying manufacturers a standardized front-of-package mechanism for identifying products that satisfy California's non-UPF criteria.

The measure builds on California's earlier statutory definition of ultraprocessed foods and its policy of phasing certain UPFs out of schools. Unlike a prohibition, AB 2244 establishes an optional certification pathway. Nevertheless, the law could affect formulation strategy, ingredient selection, marketing claims and retail positioning because participating manufacturers will need to meet defined eligibility criteria. Flavor companies should pay particular attention to how additives, sweeteners, colors, flavors and processing methods interact with certification requirements as implementation proceeds. The development also arrives while federal agencies continue considering how ultraprocessed food should be defined at the national level. Governor of California

California Governor — AB 2244 and Non-UPF Certification Announcement

10. California adopts added-sugar menu disclosure requirements — September 28, U.S.

The same California legislative package included SB 869, establishing new requirements concerning added-sugar information on restaurant menus. The law extends California's nutrition-policy activity beyond packaged-food labeling and into foodservice disclosures, potentially affecting restaurant chains, beverage companies, dessert manufacturers, syrup and flavor suppliers, and formulators of high-sugar menu items.

The practical importance is upstream as well as downstream. Restaurant operators that must calculate or communicate added-sugar information will increasingly require reliable formulation and nutrition data from ingredient and finished-product suppliers. That can create new specification, documentation and reformulation demands for beverage bases, sauces, bakery fillings, sweetened dairy ingredients, flavor systems and other products supplied to foodservice. California announced SB 869 alongside its new non-UPF certification law, framing both measures as part of a broader effort to provide consumers with additional nutrition information. Companies should monitor implementing guidance and effective dates before treating the announcement itself as the complete operational standard. Governor of California

California Governor — Food and Nutrition Legislation Package

11. California requires tracking of PFAS-containing agricultural pesticides — September 27–29, U.S.

California enacted AB 1603, requiring the Department of Pesticide Regulation to publicly identify pesticides registered in California that contain PFAS and analyze statewide usage trends. DPR must keep the information updated as additional PFAS-containing pesticides are registered and provide recurring reporting.

The final legislation is principally a transparency and monitoring requirement, rather than the direct pesticide ban contemplated in an earlier version. DPR is required to comply by the earlier of January 1, 2028 or the point at which its pesticide-use database incorporates 2026 data. Because California is a major agricultural producer, the database could become an important supply-chain tool for growers, processors and food manufacturers assessing chemical inputs associated with crops. It could also provide the evidence base for future pesticide policy. Ingredient companies sourcing fruit, vegetables, herbs, spices or other California agricultural materials may consequently want to incorporate the forthcoming data into supplier and contaminant-risk assessments. Reuters

California PFAS pesticide law coverage — Reuters

12. FDA reminds food facilities that 2026 registration-renewal window opens October 1 — September 29, U.S.

FDA issued its biennial reminder that domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold human or animal food for U.S. consumption generally must renew their FDA food-facility registrations between October 1 and December 31, 2026.

Renewals ordinarily must be submitted electronically through FDA Industry Systems unless FDA has granted a waiver. There is no FDA fee for registration or renewal. FDA states that registrations not renewed by December 31 will be considered expired. Qualified facilities also need to submit their required attestation during the same period. This is particularly relevant to flavor houses, extract manufacturers, ingredient blenders, food manufacturers, contract manufacturers and overseas facilities exporting ingredients or finished foods to the United States. Unlike many policy announcements in the period, this development carries a near-term compliance deadline: affected facilities should verify registration information, responsible contacts and qualified-facility status before the renewal window closes. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA — 2026 Food Facility Registration Renewal Requirements

13. USDA suspends California kiwifruit marketing-order requirements — September 30, U.S.

USDA announced that it will suspend provisions of the California kiwifruit federal marketing order, effective December 31, 2026. Handlers will no longer be required to comply with the order's quality, packaging and container requirements, pay assessments or file associated handling reports for the 2026–27 crop year.

The change also affects imports. Because domestic California kiwifruit quality requirements are being suspended, imported kiwifruit will no longer have to satisfy the corresponding import requirements. USDA said the action followed a May–June producer referendum in which growers did not support continuation of the marketing order. USDA plans a separate proposed rule formally terminating the order, accompanied by a 60-day public-comment period, and says mandatory imported-kiwifruit quality provisions will ultimately be removed from the CFR. The development matters to fruit processors, beverage manufacturers, flavor companies and importers because it changes both domestic handling obligations and conditions applied to imported kiwifruit. AMS

USDA — California Kiwifruit Marketing Order Suspension

14. FDA releases pesticide-residue compliance results — September 30, U.S.

FDA released its FY2024 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report, covering 3,528 human-food samples and 306 animal-food samples tested for 781 pesticides and selected industrial compounds. The report is retrospective, but it is regulatory surveillance data that FDA uses to identify compliance problems and target future enforcement.

Among human foods, 98.2% of domestic samples and 84.4% of import samples complied with federal requirements. No pesticide residues were detected in 36.8% of domestic and 36.5% of import samples. FDA notes that imported-food violation rates remain higher, consistent with its risk-based approach of disproportionately sampling products and origins believed more likely to violate EPA tolerances. FDA also examined milk, eggs, honey and game meat in a focused domestic assignment and reported no violative residues in those samples. For flavor and ingredient companies sourcing botanical extracts, fruits, vegetables, spices and agricultural raw materials internationally, the domestic/import differential is particularly relevant to supplier-verification and testing programs. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA — FY2024 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report

Additional enforcement activity worth monitoring

FDA's import-alert database also shows numerous food-related alerts updated during the period, including alerts covering illegal/undeclared colors (Sept. 29), stevia leaves and crude stevia extracts (Sept. 23), pesticides in processed foods (Sept. 25), pesticide residues in raw agricultural products (Sept. 30), insanitary fresh produce (Sept. 22), Salmonella (Sept. 30), FSVP noncompliance (Sept. 22), misbranded imported foods (Sept. 25), and foreign establishments refusing FDA inspection (Sept. 30). — Import Alerts by Publication Date.

###