A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Better Food Disclosure Act of 2025 requires that food substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS) be listed with the FDA. Substances not on this list or currently under review will be deemed unsafe. The bill establishes timelines for reporting these substances and requires the Secretary to maintain a publicly accessible list. It also allows the FDA to reevaluate the safety of food additives, color additives, and GRAS substances based on citizen petitions, state official notices, or the Secretary's own initiative.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +8
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires the creation of a publicly accessible list of safe food substances.
- Scored +7
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Increases transparency and safety oversight of substances used in food, protecting consumers from potentially unsafe additives.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Higher food safety standards and transparency generally benefit vulnerable populations like children.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Food business owners face new mandatory reporting requirements and potential product removals.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Small food businesses may struggle with the administrative burden of mandatory GRAS reporting and potential product phase-outs.
- Scored -2
Would farmers be better off under this?
Depending on the additives used in agricultural processing, some farmers may face new regulatory burdens.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Public Transparency: The Secretary must create a publicly accessible list of food substances generally recognized as safe, which allows people to know what is in their food (Section 2, subsection c).
-
Safety Reevaluations: The Secretary can reevaluate food additives, color additives, or GRAS substances if they receive concerns from citizen petitions or state government officials, potentially leading to the removal of unsafe substances (Section 3, subsection a).
-
Expert Oversight: Any final action regarding the safety or delisting of food substances must be reviewed and recommended by FDA career employees with relevant scientific and regulatory expertise (Section 3, subsection d(1)(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Food Safety Classification: Food substances generally recognized as safe that are not on the Secretary's list or under review will be deemed unsafe (Section 2, subsection a).
-
Potential for Product Removal: If the Secretary determines a GRAS substance should be removed from the list, the person using that substance may be forced to create a plan for phasing out its use (Section 2, subsection e(1)(C)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Higher food safety standards and transparency generally benefit vulnerable populations like children. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increased food safety oversight benefits general public health. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors may benefit from stricter safety reviews of food additives. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improved transparency regarding food ingredients benefits health-conscious young adults. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increased food safety standards provide a general public health benefit. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increased safety oversight protects all consumers, regardless of income, from unsafe food additives. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increased transparency regarding food ingredients benefits middle-class consumers. Would business owners be better off under this? — Food business owners face new mandatory reporting requirements and potential product removals. Would farmers be better off under this? — Depending on the additives used in agricultural processing, some farmers may face new regulatory burdens.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires the creation of a publicly accessible list of safe food substances. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands FDA authority to mandate reporting and deem substances unsafe based on list inclusion. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Requires notice and comment rulemaking and review by career scientists before final safety actions. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Allows state government officials to trigger safety reevaluations of food additives.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Increases transparency and safety oversight of substances used in food, protecting consumers from potentially unsafe additives. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small food businesses may struggle with the administrative burden of mandatory GRAS reporting and potential product phase-outs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increased regulatory compliance and potential product removals could create short-term economic disruptions for food manufacturers.
- 7/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/6/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Katie BrittRepublican · Alabama
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida