Most Say Money Will go Toward Lower Prices
Refunds from tariffs declared unlawful by the Supreme Court are back in the coffers of many major retailers with more refunds expected. Walmart received nearly $3 billion, Target $994 million, Home Depot $730 million, Amazon $600 million, and Costco $184 million, among others.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued the refunds, with interest, after the court invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Some of the refunds boosted retailers’ recent quarterly earnings reports.

Most of the retailers say they plan to use the money to provide added value, such as lower prices, but have not announced direct refunds to customers. Amazon says it will refund customers when it can identify tariff costs that were passed on to them. Costco faces a class-action lawsuit from customers seeking repayment for higher prices charged while the tariffs were in place. Approximately $166 billion was collected overall under the IEEPA tariffs.

U.S. and Beijing Swap Lists of Goods Recommended for Lower Tariffs
The United States and China have extended their trade truce to Jan. 10, 2027. In late September, the two nations released “30-for-30” lists  recommending products for reduced tariffs. Each country identified $30 billion worth of goods.

Chinese products on the list include agricultural goods, seafood, cosmetics and medical devices. The U.S. list covers 77 tariff lines, mainly ordinary consumer goods such as children’s gear, linens, decor, small appliances and sporting equipment.

The standoff with Canada began Aug. 22, when the U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on an estimated $20 billion in Canadian goods after trade talks collapsed. Canada retaliated on Sept. 8 with tariffs of 15%, 25%, or 50% on 27.6 billion Canadian dollars (about $20 billion) in U.S. imports. The U.S. responded by banning the import of approximately $1 billion worth of Canadian imports including some alcoholic beverages, dairy beverages and molasses.

FDA Says Enforcement Doesn’t Shield brands from Lawsuits
A federal appeals court ruling this summer has led to dozens of new class-action lawsuits over “zero sugar” and “sugar-free” labels. The original case, filed in 2023, targets Chobani’s Zero Sugar yogurt, which contains 4 grams of allulose per serving. The plaintiffs argued that the yogurt is, therefore, not sugar-free. A lower court initially dismissed the case, relying on the FDA’s nonbinding 2020 enforcement guidance, which says the agency will not penalize companies for leaving allulose out of the added sugars and total sugars lines on Nutrition Facts panels.

In June, the FDA filed an amicus brief stating that despite its decision not to enforce labeling counts of allulose, its regulations have always treated allulose, a monosaccharide, as a sugar and that its guidance was not meant to shield manufacturers from consumer lawsuits. On July 27, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case. Chobani says its label accurately reflects zero grams of total sugar.

Since the ruling, at least 60 proposed class-action lawsuits have been filed against other brands that use allulose alongside “zero sugar” or “sugar-free” labels. Store Brand products named in similar lawsuits include Kroger “Zero Sugar” maple syrup, Trader Joe’s Sweet and Sour Gummy Worms and Costco’s Kirkland Signature hydration drink mix.

Critics Question Treatment of Trace-Level Substances Added to Food
Criticism is growing over a part of the proposed overhaul of the Generally Accepted as Safe (GRAS) Rule that would also broaden the Threshold of Regulation (TOR) exemption. The proposal would exempt manufacturers from the new mandatory GRAS notification requirement when a substance’s expected dietary exposure falls below the threshold, even if the substance is added directly to food.

In August, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the proposal, which would require manufacturers to notify the FDA when they independently determine an ingredient is GRAS.

The TOR exemption has allowed substances used in packaging and other food-contact materials to avoid food-additive review when only trace amounts are expected to make contact with food. The proposal would extend it to substances added directly to food. The proposed rule’s reasoning is that exposure below 0.5 parts per billion is too small to cause harm, so companies should be able to bypass formal food-additive approval and the new notification requirement.

Critics say some substances can cause adverse health effects at very low levels and that the framework does not account for cumulative exposure when a person eats multiple products containing the same trace chemical.

The public comment period on the Proposed GRAS rule, including the TOR changes, is open until December 9.

Agency Allows Salt Substitutes in Standardized Foods
The FDA has issued a final rule on the use of salt substitutes, published in the Federal Register on October 13. Most amendments take effect December 14. The rule amends 139 food standards of identity, which previously required or permitted salt but did not allow substitutes. The substitutes must still meet existing safety requirements, and the foods must keep their essential characteristics. The FDA says the change supports its sodium reduction efforts and the Make America Healthy Again initiative.

FDA Seeks Feedback From Restaurants, Small Retailers
The FDA has issued draft guidance to help small retailers and restaurants not covered by earlier exemptions under the Food Traceability Rule. The agency will hold a public meeting November 6 to discuss implementation challenges. Registration is required.

FDA Outlines Steps to Prevent Future Cyclospora Outbreaks
The FDA has announced 10 short-term actions to prevent another outbreak of Cyclospora, a parasite, after this summer’s widespread lettuce outbreak. The plan includes publishing the agency’s report on the outbreak, increasing surveillance with new tools, expanding laboratory capacity in Mexico to process samples and working with Mexico’s Ministry of Agriculture.

The FDA also plans to work with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to create a standard genotyping method to simplify identifying and tracing Cyclospora in the future.

Dr. Overton Waits for Committee to Send Her Nomination to Full Senate
Dr. Heidi Overton, President Donald Trump’s nominee for FDA commissioner, testified at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Sept. 24. The committee must vote to advance the nomination before the full Senate votes on confirmation.

Federal Judge Sides with States in SNAP Case
A federal judge in Oregon has ruled for 22 states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit over changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), preserving benefits for certain lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed in July 2025, made multiple changes to SNAP. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued implementation guidance on October 31, 2025, but said that the states’ grace period ended the next day, exposing them to potential penalties.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai ruled that the administration’s deadline was unlawful and arbitrary. He also found that its guidance improperly excluded some lawful permanent residents, including former refugees and people granted asylum, from benefits for which they qualify.

Both Retailers and Senators Ask for More Time
A November 4 deadline for new SNAP stocking requirements is coming up too fast, according to the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). The group is working with 12 Republican senators who sent a letter on September 29 to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. It follows a letter on August 31 making a similar argument, signed by more than 200 retailers.

The USDA issued its Updated Staple Food Stocking Standards in May. NACS is asking for a six-month delay, to May 2027, arguing that the deadline is too soon and that many retailers could lose their SNAP authorization. The USDA has said it will help retailers comply.

Senator Warren Warns Deals Could Raise Prices
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to closely review three pending deals in food service and grocery: Kroger Co.’s acquisition of Giant Eagle Inc., Sysco’s acquisition of Jetro Restaurant Depot and McCormick & Co.’s acquisition of Unilever PLC’s food business.

In an October 5 letter to regulators the Senator wrote that the deals could raise prices for consumers and that their timing points to a growing trend of consolidation. On the same day as the letter, the FTC granted early termination of the pre-merger waiting period for the Unilever/McCormick merger, although it still needs approval from the United Kingdom’s Competition and Market Authority. Kroger has said it plans to sell some stores to win regulatory approval.

Proposed Law Also Looks at Nickel Production
The bipartisan Common Cents Act has passed both houses of Congress and awaits President Donald Trump’s signature. It would formalize the end of penny production, which the U.S. Mint halted in 2025. The bill would set rules for rounding cash transactions to the nearest 5 cents when exact change is unavailable. It also would authorize the Treasury to explore less expensive metal compositions for nickels and would require congressional reporting before any other circulating coin is discontinued. Pennies would still be produced for collectors.

Court Rulings Chip Away at the Patchwork of State Mandates
Federal judges are blocking state labeling laws as legal challenges succeed against state lawmakers’ efforts to mandate food labels. A Texas requirement for health warnings on certain products, part of the “Make Texas Healthy Again Act,” was blocked, as was California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, which would have restricted recycling labels.

California Exempts Supplements
The New York State Legislature has passed a bill standardizing “Use By” and “Best If Used By” date labels and prohibiting “Sell By” labels on food. The bill now goes to the governor to sign or veto. If signed into law, the act will go into effect in 180 days, and the new date labeling requirements will take effect one year later. The new labels would not apply to infant formula or alcohol.

In California, a law enacted in September exempts dietary supplements from the state’s food date-labeling law, effective immediately. The Council for Responsible Nutrition argued that supplement dating reflects potency and shelf life, not perishability or safety. The original law was intended to cut food waste by simplifying labels.

DISCUS Testifies in Texas Senate on ‘Deceptive’ Products
The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) testified on September 15 before the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs. It argued that retailers have a financial incentive to encourage customers to buy private label and control-label spirits, and it called for transparency around store brand products. DISCUS asked for a framework that would disclose retailer ownership and include safeguards against what it called “deceptive look-alike products.”

Also Limits Sale of OTC Diet Aids, Muscle Builders to Minors
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two measures on September 28.  The UPF Label Bill creates a voluntary “non-ultraprocessed certified” seal to help consumers identify ultraprocessed foods. This follows last October’s passage of the California Health/UPF School Lunches Bill, which was signed on October 8, 2025 and both defines UPF’s and phases them out of school meal programs.

On September 28, Governor Newsom also signed a bill banning certain over-the-counter diet pills as well as supplements for weight loss or muscle building to anyone under the age of 18. This new law requires retailers and online sellers to verify a buyer’s date of birth and takes effect January 1, 2027. A similar New York state law exists.

Industry groups criticized the supplement restrictions, saying they depend on how products are labeled and displayed and that varying state rules create compliance challenges.

Lawsuit Alleges Higher Prices for SNAP Online Orders
Aldi faces a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging it charges extra delivery fees to customers who pay for online orders with SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. The suit claims Aldi charges higher prices for identical items when they are bought online with SNAP and improperly charges SNAP customers fees that benefits cannot cover.

Aldi’s website says SNAP cannot be used for delivery fees, tips or other fees that may apply to online orders. The lawsuit was filed September 28 in California state court and seeks class-action status.