Six Food Policies We’re Watching in 2026
As we settle into 2026, food policy across the city, state, and nation is shifting in ways that will affect our diets, health, and food systems for years to come. From renewed federal nutrition guidance to local standards that will shape millions of meals in New York City, this year involves bold policy changes and promises high-stakes debate. Below, we unpack six food policy issues we are watching closely in 2026, each with implications for public health, equity, and the future of what and how we eat.
Resetting National Nutrition Policy
In early January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture jointly released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030 (DGAs), marking what officials have described as the most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in decades. Under the leadership of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, the new guidelines deliver the broad message to “eat real food” while revising established nutrition advice in notable ways.
For years, the Dietary Guidelines steered federal nutrition programs, from school meals to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), toward limiting saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium while emphasizing the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
The 2025–2030 edition maintains some of these recommendations but also elevates protein intake and expands the role of nutrient-dense foods, a shift that has generated debate among nutrition experts. Some view the emphasis on proteins, including red meat and full-fat dairy, as a controversial departure after decades of advocating for plant-forward diets and tighter limits on saturated fat, arguing that encouraging greater consumption of red and processed meats contradicts longstanding evidence linking high saturated fat intake to elevated LDL cholesterol and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. And critics also point to research connecting high intake of processed and red meats with colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes, warning that a broad protein-forward message could blur important distinctions among protein sources.
Some public health advocates have also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in the guideline development process, particularly the influence of food industry stakeholders and advisory committee members with industry ties, while others warn that recommending higher consumption of resource-intensive animal products could undermine broader public health and climate goals.
The broader political context also matters. This edition of the Dietary Guidelines unfolds amid an intense national discourse about the role of science in policy-making and the extent to which dietary guidance should be shaped by independent scientific review rather than broader political, economic, and ideological priorities. Some observers argue that federal nutrition policy has become too influenced by industry interests or partisan agendas, while others contend that previous guidelines were too cautious or disconnected from emerging concerns about metabolic health and chronic disease. While administration officials frame the reset as responsive to chronic disease epidemics and rising health costs, nutrition scientists caution that the guidelines must remain grounded in scientific evidence to retain credibility and public trust.
A Decades-Long Nutrition Consensus Gets Rewritten
Closer to home, New York City is poised to implement one of the most far-reaching local nutrition policy changes in recent memory. Starting July 1, 2026, updated food standards for the meals and snacks served by 11 city agencies, including the Department of Education and the Department for the Aging, will take effect, shaping more than 219 million meals and snacks annually. Updated by the NYC Department of Health and the Mayor’s Office of Food Policy, the standards prioritize nutritious, minimally processed foods while restricting additives and ingredients linked to adverse health outcomes. They expand restrictions on low- and no-calorie sweeteners to apply to all ages, eliminate processed meats from city-served meals, and impose new limits on artificial colors, certain preservatives, and other additives. And they also strengthen requirements for whole or minimally processed plant proteins while setting tougher standards for snack quality. These changes build on more than a decade of municipal efforts to use procurement and standards as tools for better public health outcomes, particularly in a city facing obvious diet-related health disparities.
Although the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans inform national nutrition programs and set minimum standards for federally reimbursed school meals, New York City retains the authority to adopt stricter procurement standards for food served by its agencies. In several areas, including the elimination of processed meats and broader additive restrictions, the city’s standards already go farther than federal requirements for nutritional requirements. As national guidance recalibrates its emphasis on protein and nutrient density, the ways local institutions align with or diverge from those guidelines may become an important point of discussion in 2026.
The practical effect of these standards will be felt across settings ranging from public schools to hospitals to community centers, and implementation will require both creativity and institutional capacity. Creativity may mean reformulating menus to meet stricter ingredient criteria while preserving flavor and cultural relevance, developing appealing plant-forward entrées to replace processed meats, identifying new product substitutions that comply with additive restrictions without increasing costs, and ensuring student acceptance of the new school meals. Capacity, by contrast, refers to the operational and financial infrastructure needed to execute these changes — including retraining kitchen staff, renegotiating vendor contracts, sourcing compliant products in large quantities, upgrading procurement systems, and absorbing potential cost differentials within already constrained agency budgets. And, all the while, both advocates and critics will be watching closely to see whether these standards reduce chronic disease risk and advance food equity by ensuring that publicly funded meals reflect current nutrition science and community needs.
Street Vending Reform: Unlocking Decades-Long Barriers
After more than 40 years of restrictive licensing, New York City is finally poised to overhaul its street vending system. Beginning in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the city froze the number of legally available vending permits, leaving thousands of entrepreneurs, most of them immigrants, unable to operate legally. For decades, vendors navigated a shadow market for permits, faced fines for unlicensed operations, and risked enforcement that, in recent years, intersected with federal immigration crackdowns, leaving some at risk of detention or deportation.
In late 2025, the City Council passed a package of bills aimed at finally modernizing the system. Intro 431‑B expands the number of food and general vending licenses available each year, bringing more vendors into the legal economy. Intro 408‑A creates a dedicated Division of Street Vendor Assistance within the Department of Small Business Services to guide entrepreneurs through licensing, compliance, and training. Intro 1251‑A addresses longstanding administrative bottlenecks that have delayed the issuance of already authorized licenses.
By reducing regulatory barriers and providing dedicated support, the legislation aims to bring thousands of vendors into compliance, improve the safety and quality of street food operations, and reshape the landscape of small food entrepreneurship across the city.
Protecting Food Benefits in an Uncertain Federal Landscape
Federal nutrition assistance remains at the forefront of food policy debates in 2026 as SNAP continues to face administrative changes and legal pressures that could reshape access to food assistance for millions. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in a typical month, up to 4 million Americans will lose some or all of their SNAP benefits once the changes from H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill) are fully implemented. Court rulings in late 2025 extended compliance deadlines related to SNAP eligibility and state administrative requirements, slowing the implementation of contested federal changes but not resolving the underlying policy disagreements over stricter work requirements, expanded administrative oversight, and whether heightened compliance measures risk increasing bureaucratic barriers and reducing access for eligible low-income households.
At the state level, New York has been vocal about the importance of safeguarding and strengthening food security programs despite federal cuts. Hunger Solutions New York (a non-profit dedicated to alleviating hunger across New York State) applauded the 2026 State of the State proposals for centering its agenda on food security and expanding summer nutrition programs, which are critical for children who lose school-based meals when classes are not in session. In addition, the transition to chip-enabled EBT cards to protect against electronic theft reflects a state priority to ensure that benefits reach their intended recipients without loss to fraud or theft. The shift comes in response to the EBT skimming that has cost New York households tens of millions of dollars in stolen SNAP benefits in recent years, leaving many families without resources to purchase food and straining already vulnerable budgets.
These state-level investments are being made in the face of increased cost pressures and rising food insecurity. A recent state report highlights the fact that food prices in the NYC metropolitan area have risen 25.2 percent since 2019, outpacing income growth and exacerbating affordability challenges for low-income households. In this context, policy decisions at both the federal and state levels, whether related to eligibility rules, broader program integrity and fraud prevention efforts, or specific administrative tools such as chip-enabled EBT card design, will carry significant implications for food access and equity across New York. Most significantly, stricter eligibility or compliance measures could result in eligible households losing benefits or facing delays in access, deepening food insecurity at a time when food costs remain elevated.
The Billion-Dollar Bill that Shapes What Americans Eat
Passed roughly every five years, the Farm Bill is a sprawling piece of legislation that governs federal spending on agriculture, nutrition assistance, conservation, crop insurance, and rural development. While it is often framed as agricultural policy, the majority of funding is dedicated to SNAP, making it one of the most consequential food policy instruments in the country.
The upcoming Farm Bill negotiations arrive at a moment of heightened debate over how agricultural production, nutrition policy, and public health goals align. The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines have renewed questions about protein sources, processed foods, and chronic disease prevention, raising broader issues about whether federal farm subsidies and commodity programs support or undermine national nutrition priorities.
Early proposals suggest that lawmakers are considering changes across several major titles within the bill. In the nutrition title, debates center on SNAP funding levels, work requirements, benefit calculations, and program integrity provisions. In the commodity and crop insurance titles, proposals include adjustments to price supports and expanded protections for producers facing climate-related losses. Conservation advocates are advocating to strengthen climate-smart agriculture programs and expand incentives for soil health, carbon sequestration, and sustainable land management, while others support increased investment in local and regional food systems, specialty crop producers, and infrastructure that supports shorter supply chains.
As negotiations unfold, a defining question will be whether the bill meaningfully integrates nutrition, climate, and equity objectives or continues to treat them as separate silos. Decisions about how federal dollars are distributed could shape not only what farmers grow but also which foods are most affordable and accessible to consumers, including millions of New Yorkers who rely on SNAP benefits.
The FDA Reconsiders What’s ”Safe” in Your Food
Another area gaining momentum in federal policy circles in 2026 is food chemical safety and additive oversight. The FDA’s Human Foods Program has identified ambitious priority deliverables for the year, including substantial updates to the way food additives, including preservatives, sweeteners, and flavor enhancers, are regulated. Among the proposed actions is a shift away from the voluntary GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) notification system toward one requiring formal submission and FDA review of all GRAS substances.
Under the current GRAS framework, food manufacturers can determine that a substance is safe for use in food based on publicly available scientific evidence and expert review, and they are not required to seek formal FDA approval before bringing it to market. While companies may voluntarily notify the FDA of a GRAS determination, the notification process is not mandatory, meaning that some substances can enter the food supply without direct FDA evaluation. Critics argue that this system gives too much responsibility to manufacturers and limits transparency, while supporters contend it allows for regulatory efficiency and innovation.
Food additive policy has long been a sticking point for advocates concerned about chronic disease risk, environmental health, and consumer trust. Efforts to strengthen oversight, such as mandating FDA review of GRAS substances, reassessing legacy additives, and tightening limits on certain preservatives and artificial colors, could have ripple effects on processing, manufacturing, and ingredient sourcing decisions. Manufacturers may need to reformulate products, identify alternative preservatives or stabilizers, adjust shelf-life expectations, redesign packaging, renegotiate supplier contracts, and/or absorb higher production costs. Smaller producers could face disproportionate compliance burdens, while large companies may shift sourcing toward ingredients with clearer regulatory standing. In some cases, reformulation could also alter taste, texture, or price, influencing consumer acceptance and market dynamics.
At the intersection of additive safety and nutrition guidance lie fundamental questions about whether tighter regulation of preservatives, flavor enhancers, and other additives will meaningfully reduce the prevalence of ultra-processed foods, how reformulation costs might affect food prices and affordability, and whether stronger oversight will narrow or widen disparities in access to healthier options. And, at the same time, policymakers must grapple with how to distinguish between necessary food safety innovations and additives primarily used to enhance shelf life, palatability, or marketability. Advocates and policymakers alike will be watching how the FDA balances industry input, scientific evidence, and public health priorities as it advances these regulatory reforms.
Looking Ahead
What makes 2026 particularly unusual is the sheer scope of change happening all at once—and the tensions among these shifts. On the one hand, the federal Dietary Guidelines are encouraging a higher intake of protein, including red meat and full-fat dairy, while on the other, New York City’s new food standards, which take effect this July, will shift millions of meals toward plant-forward options and stricter limits on processed meats and additives. And, all the while, SNAP rules, Farm Bill negotiations, and FDA food additive reforms will intersect with these nutrition priorities, shaping affordability, availability, and safety across the food system.
The next six months will be decisive. NYC’s updated food standards will begin to reshape what city residents eat, federal Farm Bill negotiations will influence what foods are accessible and affordable nationwide, and SNAP and other nutrition programs will confront administrative, legal, and budgetary pressures that could redefine food security for millions. How these policies align—or conflict—will test the ability of local and federal actors to simultaneously promote public health, equity, and sustainability. For advocates, practitioners, and everyday New Yorkers, 2026 is not just a year of new rules; it is a moment to watch how the pieces of America’s food system fit together and whether bold policy intentions translate into meaningful change on the plate.
