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

Coverage: official U.S., Canadian and Mexican regulatory sources, federal and state materials, court records, and specialist food-law and industry reporting. Topics tracked include ingredients, flavors and colors, additives, labeling, foodservice, pesticide residues, packaging, meat inspection, novel foods and enforcement. Routine recalls are excluded unless they point to a broader regulatory or enforcement change.

Fourteen developments are worth tracking. Nearly all of them come from the U.S. Canada contributed one significant novel food decision, and nothing comparable came out of Mexico during the period.

1. FDA: report on foodborne illness risk factors in retail delis (Sept. 16, U.S.)

FDA published Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Retail Food Store Delis, based on observations from 2019–2022. It isn't a regulation, but FDA says the findings will shape future retail food initiatives, policies, targeted interventions and regulatory assistance, as well as its next round of data collection starting in October 2026.

Delis with a Certified Food Protection Manager acting as person in charge scored significantly better on food safety management. A well-developed management system was the strongest predictor of keeping risk factors under control. Improper time and temperature holding and poor personal hygiene were the most common problems; inadequate cooking was the least common. FDA paired the report with calls to action for regulators and industry.

Suppliers of seasonings, sauces, meat, cheese and other products that are handled heavily at retail should take note.

Source: FDA

2. USDA: $50 million to expand state meat inspection (Sept. 16, U.S.)

USDA announced the Stand-Up Program, which offers up to $50 million to help states set up or expand meat and poultry inspection programs run in partnership with the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Thirty-one states currently run their own inspection programs, and 11 of them also take part in the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program.

High startup costs have kept some states from building inspection systems, and the money is meant to give small, very small and midsize processors more options. More inspected processors means more potential customers for meat ingredient, seasoning and flavor suppliers. FSIS also set out a phased rollout of a new sampling approach, with district training in early 2027 and industry listening sessions to come.

Source: FSIS bulletin

3. FDA: 2026 Food Code released (Sept. 17, U.S.)

FDA published the 2026 Food Code, the model rules that state, local, tribal and territorial authorities use to regulate restaurants, grocery stores, institutional kitchens and other retail food businesses. The Food Code has no force on its own, but most jurisdictions adopt it, so changes eventually become local law.

New in this edition:

• Establishments must keep written employee illness policies.
• An alternative cooling process is allowed.
• Double-gloving is permitted in certain circumstances.
• Revisions cover allergen cross-contact, sanitizer temperatures, consumer advisories, food donation, specialty mushroom hazards, dehydration and freeze-drying, vending machines, waste receptacles, and definitions of food and mobile food establishments.

For suppliers to foodservice, the allergen and processing changes matter most, since customers tend to write them into supplier specifications and procedures as their jurisdictions adopt the new Code.

Source: FDA

4. FDA: changes to animal food GRAS and food additive reviews (Sept. 22, U.S.)

FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine finished a two-year review of its Food Additive Petition and GRAS Notification programs for animal food ingredients. The review drew on public comments, 14 external engagement sessions and internal interviews. FDA says it will make the process faster and more predictable without changing the scientific standard.

The most concrete change is Program Policy and Procedures Manual 1244.3425, which sets out the Animal Food GRAS Notice Evaluation Timeline. It makes the review stages more transparent and builds in more contact with submitters.

Review timing often drives launch and investment decisions, so this matters to flavor, fermentation, enzyme and specialty ingredient suppliers working in both human and animal nutrition. FDA is clear that these are procedural improvements, not a lower bar: reviews may be quicker, but the GRAS standard is unchanged.

Source: FDA

5. EPA and HHS: new scientific partnership on glyphosate (Sept. 22, U.S.)

EPA and HHS signed a memorandum of understanding to work together on the science behind EPA's ongoing glyphosate registration review under FIFRA. They will share data, identify research gaps and coordinate further work on possible human health effects, drawing on expertise from FDA, CDC, NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program. EPA keeps sole authority over registration decisions, and the agreement creates no new regulatory powers.

Its importance lies in what it could add to the evidence behind EPA's eventual decision. Glyphosate is used on a huge range of crops, so any change to its registration, permitted uses or risk management would ripple through commodity, ingredient and food supply chains. For now this is a change to the review process, not a restriction on use.

Source: EPA

6. EPA: glyphosate comment period extended to November 23 (Sept. 25, U.S.)

Three days later, EPA added 60 days to the comment period on its glyphosate human health open literature search protocol, moving the deadline to November 23, 2026. The protocol determines which studies may enter the evidence base for the registration review.

EPA first released the document on August 25 with comments due September 24. It linked the extension to the new HHS partnership and its aim of broadening the scientific record. The extra time gives researchers, growers, industry groups and public health organizations more chance to submit evidence. Nothing about glyphosate tolerances or permitted uses changed; this is a procedural step in what could become a consequential reassessment.

Source: EPA

7. FDA: vitamin D2 inactive baker's yeast approved for more foods (Sept. 25, U.S.)

FDA issued a final amendment to 21 CFR Part 172 allowing vitamin D2 inactive baker's yeast as a source of vitamin D2 in specified food categories. The rule responds to a petition from Lallemand. It took effect on September 25, 2026, and objections or hearing requests are due by October 26.

The ingredient is made by exposing Saccharomyces cerevisiae to UV light, which converts more of its naturally occurring ergosterol to vitamin D2, and then heat-inactivating the yeast. It can now be used, on a vitamin D2 basis, in the same applications and at the same levels already permitted for vitamin D2 mushroom powder.

This is an actual expansion of permitted use, not guidance, which makes it one of the most directly usable developments of the period. It gives formulators another non-animal vitamin D source, which is particularly useful for plant-based and vegan products.

Source: Federal Register

8. Health Canada: no objection to Rhiza mycoprotein (reported Sept. 25, Canada)

Health Canada completed its novel food assessment of Rhiza Mycoprotein from The Better Meat Co. and told the company it has no objection to its use as food in Canada. Rhiza is non-viable, dehydrated mycelium biomass from a non-GM strain of Neurospora crassa, intended as a protein and fiber source in meat, poultry, seafood, meat alternatives and dairy analogues.

The assessment covered manufacturing, composition, dietary exposure, nutrition, microbiology, toxicology, allergens and contaminants. Health Canada reports roughly 45% protein and 30% dietary fiber and found no safety concerns for the proposed uses. Manufacturers are still responsible for making sure any additives and processing aids used alongside it comply with the Food and Drug Regulations and Canada's permitted additive lists.

The decision opens a wider path for fermentation-derived proteins in Canada. The same ingredient is also under assessment by FSANZ in Australia and New Zealand.

Source: Health Canada

9. California: voluntary "Non-Ultraprocessed Certified" label (Sept. 28, U.S.)

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2244, which sets up a state framework for a voluntary Non-Ultraprocessed Certified standard and front-of-pack label. California says it is the first state certification of its kind.

The law builds on California's earlier statutory definition of ultraprocessed foods and its policy of phasing some of them out of schools. It is optional, not a ban, but manufacturers who want the label will have to meet defined criteria, which could shape formulation, ingredient choices, claims and retail positioning. Flavor companies should watch how additives, sweeteners, colors, flavors and processing methods are treated as the criteria are developed. Federal agencies are still working on a national definition of ultraprocessed food.

Source: Office of the Governor of California

10. California: added sugar on restaurant menus (Sept. 28, U.S.)

The same package included SB 869, which introduces requirements for added sugar information on restaurant menus. It takes California's nutrition labeling push from packaged food into foodservice, with implications for restaurant chains, beverage companies, dessert makers, and syrup and flavor suppliers.

The effect runs upstream. Restaurants that must calculate or display added sugar will need reliable formulation and nutrition data from their suppliers, which means new specification, documentation and possibly reformulation demands for beverage bases, sauces, bakery fillings, sweetened dairy ingredients and flavor systems. Implementing guidance and effective dates are still to come.

Source: Office of the Governor of California

11. California: tracking PFAS in agricultural pesticides (Sept. 27–29, U.S.)

AB 1603 requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to publicly list pesticides registered in California that contain PFAS, analyze statewide use trends, and keep the list updated as new products are registered.

An earlier version would have banned these pesticides outright. The final law is about transparency and monitoring. DPR must comply by January 1, 2028, or once its pesticide use database includes 2026 data, whichever comes first.

Given California's weight in agriculture, the database could become a useful tool for growers, processors and food manufacturers checking crop inputs, and it may lay the groundwork for future policy. Companies sourcing California fruit, vegetables, herbs and spices may want to fold the data into supplier and contaminant risk assessments once it is published.

Source: Reuters

12. FDA: food facility registration renewal opens October 1 (Sept. 29, U.S.)

FDA reminded domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold human or animal food for U.S. consumption that registrations must generally be renewed between October 1 and December 31, 2026.

Renewals are filed electronically through FDA Industry Systems unless FDA has granted a waiver, and there is no fee. Registrations not renewed by December 31 are treated as expired. Qualified facilities must also submit their attestation in the same window.

This one has a firm deadline. Flavor houses, extract makers, ingredient blenders, contract manufacturers and overseas exporters should check their registration details, contacts and qualified-facility status well before the window closes.

Source: FDA

13. USDA: California kiwifruit marketing order suspended (Sept. 30, U.S.)

USDA will suspend provisions of the federal marketing order for California kiwifruit, effective December 31, 2026. For the 2026–27 crop year, handlers will no longer have to meet the order's quality, pack and container requirements, pay assessments or file handling reports.

Imports are affected too: with the domestic quality requirements suspended, imported kiwifruit no longer has to meet the matching import requirements. The move follows a May–June referendum in which growers voted against continuing the order. USDA plans a separate proposed rule to terminate the order, with a 60-day comment period, and says the mandatory import quality provisions will eventually be removed from the CFR.

Fruit processors, beverage makers, flavor companies and importers working with kiwifruit will see both domestic and import conditions change.

Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service

14. FDA: FY2024 pesticide residue monitoring results (Sept. 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 chemicals. The data look backward, but FDA uses them to spot compliance problems and target enforcement.

For human foods, 98.2% of domestic samples and 84.4% of imported samples complied with federal limits. No residues were found in 36.8% of domestic and 36.5% of imported samples. Imports continue to show higher violation rates, in part because FDA deliberately samples products and origins it considers higher risk. A focused domestic assignment on milk, eggs, honey and game meat found no violations.

For companies sourcing botanicals, fruit, vegetables, spices and other agricultural materials internationally, the gap between domestic and imported compliance is a good reason to keep supplier verification and testing tight.

Source: FDA

Also on the radar: FDA import alerts

FDA updated a number of food-related import alerts during the period, including alerts on illegal or 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). (FDA – Import alerts by publication date)

Key takeaways for flavor and ingredient companies

• FDA facility registration: renewal window runs October 1 to December 31; unrenewed registrations expire.
• Vitamin D2 inactive baker's yeast: permitted now; a new non-animal vitamin D option for fortified products.
• California AB 2244 and SB 869: non-UPF certification criteria and menu added-sugar rules will put new demands on formulation and supplier data.
• Glyphosate: comments on EPA's literature search protocol are due November 23.
• Rhiza mycoprotein: cleared in Canada, with approvals moving forward elsewhere.

Scope: material regulatory developments in the U.S., Canada and Mexico released between September 16 and 30, 2026, identified from public sources. Routine recalls are not covered.

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.

###