Kennedy Says Administration Will ‘Act on’ Kessler Petition but Stops Short of Regulating Ultraprocessed Foods
On Feb. 15, 2026, in a televised interview on 60 minutes, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged that the administration would move on a high-profile citizens petition asking regulators to revisit the status of ingredients used in ultraprocessed foods. Kennedy framed the effort as an informational campaign rather than a commitment to new rules, leaving open what concrete steps federal agencies will take next.
What Kennedy pledged and what he declined to do
Kennedy said the department would “act on” the request filed by a former agency commissioner who urged that core ingredients in many ultraprocessed products no longer meet the threshold of being “generally recognized as safe. ” The petition invokes a decades-old strategy used to confront harmful products in other industries, and it challenges regulators to close what advocates call the GRAS loophole.
Still, the secretary was explicit that the administration is not promising direct regulation of ultraprocessed foods. He described the immediate role of the department and the Food and Drug Administration as making sure Americans understand what they are consuming, emphasizing consumer education and transparency over mandatory restrictions. Kennedy’s comments mark a tactical shift from more aggressive past stances on other health issues and underscore a careful balance between public messaging and regulatory action.
The petition, the deadline and the science debate
The petition questions the long-standing GRAS designation, arguing that industrial techniques and novel formulations used to produce many shelf-stable, highly processed items may no longer qualify as safe without fresh review. The FDA is required to respond to such a petition within 180 days; that statutory window closed last week, and the agency issued an interim response saying the matter remains under continuous review and that no final determination has been reached.
Researchers describe ultraprocessed foods as products engineered using industrial ingredients and manufacturing methods—often high in sugar, salt and fat, and designed for convenience, long shelf life and irresistible taste. One food writer summed them up as items you cannot make at home, that require a factory to produce. That characterization aligns with the petition’s claim that some manufacturing approaches fundamentally alter ingredients in ways that deserve regulatory scrutiny.
Industry reaction and political context
Industry groups pushed back on proposals that would overhaul ingredient oversight, stressing that the food system is highly regulated and that companies follow rigorous safety standards. Trade associations emphasized the importance of the GRAS process for innovation and said they are open to working with federal agencies on transparency measures and any scientific updates to ingredient review.
The secretary has been promoting a public health campaign framed around “Eat Real Food, ” and his comments point to a focus on consumer awareness as a primary lever for change. That direction may appeal politically—pivoting away from earlier controversies—and it puts pressure on federal agencies to reconcile scientific review, legal authority and practical policy steps that do not immediately disrupt product supply chains.
What comes next is procedural and potentially contentious. If regulators decide to reclassify certain ingredients or tighten the GRAS standard, manufacturers could face reformulation costs and new labeling expectations. If the approach remains informational, advocates warn that meaningful changes to public health outcomes may be limited. Agencies now have to clarify whether their next moves will be rulemaking, enforcement actions or public education campaigns, and they will be watched closely by public-health advocates, industry representatives and lawmakers.
For now, the administration’s position is a blend of rhetoric and restraint: an explicit willingness to engage with the petition’s questions, paired with a reluctance to pledge regulatory intervention. That posture sets the stage for a months-long process in which science, law and politics will determine whether ultraprocessed foods face stricter oversight or simply sharper public scrutiny.
