Food and Drug Administration

nixiFLOR Injection Approved by the FDA for Bovine Respiratory Disease Treatment

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 19:37:10 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nixiFLOR injectable solution by Parnell Technologies, marking the first FDA-approved generic version of Resflor GOLD by Merck Animal Health. This product is indicated for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) associated with Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni and Mycoplasma bovis, and for control of BRD-associated fever in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle.

nixiFLOR contains the same active ingredients as Resflor GOLD:

Florfenicol, a broad spectrum antibiotic effective against key bacterial pathogens involved in BRD
Flunixin meglumine, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that helps reduce fever and inflammation associated with respiratory infection

The FDA determined nixiFLOR is bioequivalent to the brand name product and that, when used according to the label, residues in edible tissues do not pose a public health concern. A withdrawal phase of 38 days must be observed before cattle treated with nixiFLOR enter the food supply.

Administered via subcutaneous injection in the neck, nixiFLOR is prescribed at 40 mg florfenicol/kg body weight and 2.2 mg flunixin/kg body weight (approximately 6 mL per 100lb. of body weight), with no more than 10 mL per injection site. This product is available by prescription only from licensed veterinarians, ensuring accurate diagnosis and responsible use.

FDA Report Shows 16% Increase in Livestock Antimicrobial Sales in 2024

Thu, 08 Jan 2026 21:38:20 GMT

After years of relative stability, U.S. antimicrobial sales for food-producing animals rose in 2024. According to the FDA’s 2024 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals , sales of medically important antibiotics increased 16% compared with 2023, marking a notable reversal after nearly a decade of plateauing or declining volumes.

When it comes to cattle, this report raises an important question: Does this increase reflect a temporary response to disease and production pressures, or does it reflect a more durable change in antimicrobial purchasing patterns?

FDA Antimicrobial Sales Trends Show a Clear Rebound

FDA data shows antimicrobial sales for food-producing animals peaked in 2015, followed by sustained declines after growth-promotion indications were removed and veterinary oversight expanded. From 2016 through 2023, total sales largely stabilized or declined modestly, including a 2% decrease from 2022 to 2023.

(FDA)

This pattern changed in 2024. Total antimicrobial sales increased 16% year over year, representing the largest single-year increase since regulatory reforms took effect. While overall volumes remain approximately 27% below 2015 levels, the size and rebound stands out against nearly a decade of gradual reduction.

Which antimicrobial classes increased in 2024?

The 2024 increase was not evenly distributed across antimicrobial classes. Several medically important categories accounted for most of the growth:

Tetracyclines: ~20% increase; remains the largest class by volume
Aminoglycosides: ~37% increase
Lincosamides: ~11% increase

In contrast, penicillins declined by approximately 14%, despite remaining among the most commonly sold classes overall.

The concurrent rise across these classes likely reflects increased disease pressure and production challenges. While FDA sales data cannot identify clinical drivers, the pattern points toward greater reliance on core therapeutic drugs during a challenging production year.

Looking across species, 41% of medically important antimicrobial sales in 2024 were intended for cattle, 43% for swine, and 16% for poultry.

What the Data Show for Cattle

When looking specifically at cattle, tetracycline sales increased ~19%, aminoglycosides increased ~38%, sulfonamides increased ~24% and cephalosporins increased ~26%.

These antimicrobial classes are foundational tools in cattle medicine, particularly for respiratory and systemic disease. Tetracyclines are widely used across beef and dairy systems for bovine respiratory disease, anaplasmosis and reproductive tract infections, supported by broad-spectrum activity, multiple formulations and long-standing familiarity in practice. Aminoglycosides are used more selectively but are important for treating gram-negative and enteric infections, often in more severe cases. Lincosamides are commonly used for respiratory disease and certain anaerobic or foot infections.

To provide additional context, the FDA report also includes biomass-adjusted antimicrobial sales, including an interactive dashboard , which accounts for changes in animal population size and average live weight. This data could be a more meaningful indicator of antimicrobial use intensity.

Biomass-adjusted sales of aminoglycosides, amphenicols, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, lincosamides, sulfonamides and tetracyclines for cattle all increased from 2023 to 2024 representing a higher intensity of use.

Swine Data Also Showed Increases

The sale of medically important microbial drugs for use in swine increased 13% from 2023 to 2024. While annual sales for swine have been slowly increasing since 2020, this jump is much larger than it has been in previous years.

Looking at specific drug classes, Aminoglycoside sales increased ~25%, fluoroquinolones increased ~49%, sulfonamides increased ~15%, tetracyclines increased ~15%, and lincosamides increased ~13%.

In swine, aminoglycosides and sulfonamides are frequently used to manage enteric and respiratory conditions. Fluoroquinolones and tetracyclines are critical for addressing complex swine respiratory diseases and systemic infections, while lincosamides are often specifically targeted at combating swine dysentery, mycoplasmal pneumonia and infectious arthritis.

Biomass-adjusted sales of these drugs for swine all also increased from 2023 to 2024.

Sales Data are not the same as on-farm use

A critical point emphasized by FDA is sales and distribution data do not directly measure the actual use of antimicrobial drugs on farms. These drugs can be purchased in anticipation of use, be used at a later date or held in inventory for future needs. There is no national system in place that measures antimicrobial use across animal production sectors in real time. Year-to-year fluctuations in sales can reflect many factors including animal health needs, changes in livestock populations and evolving production practices.

Despite the rebound in 2024, food-animal antimicrobial sales remain significantly lower than a decade ago. Even so, the data reinforce the need for stewardship that balances effective disease control with antimicrobial resistance considerations, guided by clinical judgment and herd-level decision-making.

FDA Approves Exzolt Cattle-CA1 for Prevention and Treatment of New World Screwworm

Thu, 04 Dec 2025 18:42:23 GMT

On December 4, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted conditional approval to Exzolt Cattle-CA1, a fluralaner topical solution from Merck Animal Health, for the use in beef cattle (≥ 2 months of age) and replacement dairy heifers (< 20 months of age). The approved uses include prevention and treatment of larval infestations by New World screwworm (NWS), and treatment and control of cattle fever tick.

“The FDA is leveraging every resource and authority at its disposal to ensure producers and veterinarians have the critical products they need to protect their livestock and safeguard our food supply against NWS and cattle fever tick,” said Timothy Schell, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, in a press release . “We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that animal drugs are safe and effective and that food from treated animals is safe to eat.”

While NWS has not yet been detected in the U.S., the threat persists just south of the border with a new case being reported yesterday. Cattle fever ticks, present along the U.S.-Mexico border in south Texas, are competent vectors of Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina — agents of bovine babesiosis (Texas cattle fever).

“The threat of New World screwworm represents a growing concern to U.S. agriculture, potentially causing devastating economic losses for cattle producers that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Rick DeLuca, president of Merck Animal Health, in a news release . “We worked closely with the FDA to accelerate availability so that veterinarians and cattle producers will have access to a powerful new tool to protect cattle from these serious parasites, helping to safeguard the industry’s economic future and the nation’s beef supply.”

The conditional approval status reflects FDA’s determination that Exzolt Cattle-CA1 is safe for its labeled use and is reasonably expected to be effective, while requiring that its sponsor, Merck Animal Health, submit further data demonstrating its effectiveness over the next five years to support full approval.

Administration and Use Considerations

Exzolt Cattle-CA1 is a ready-to-use pour-on that delivers the active ingredient, fluralaner, to act systemically against infestations. Administration involves applying a narrow band of the solution from between the shoulder blades to the tailhead. It will be available in the first quarter of 2026 by prescription in 250 mL, 1 L or 5 L bottles.

After administration, there is a 98-day withdrawal period before slaughter to ensure meat from treated animals is free of drug residues. Use is prohibited in lactating dairy cattle, dairy calves, veal calves or bulls over one year of age that are intended for breeding.

This approval of Exzolt Cattle-CA1 complements that of Dectomax-CA1 , which was authorized in September 2025 for prevention and treatment of NWS infestations in cattle. Together, these two products give veterinarians and producers their first pharmacologic defenses against NWS.

Generic vs. Pioneer Drugs for Cattle: Should You Care?

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:58:12 GMT

Medication use is an essential part of maintaining health, productivity and welfare in dairy and beef cattle. From treating mastitis on a dairy to managing respiratory disease in a feedlot, veterinarians and producers rely on a range of pharmaceuticals to keep herds healthy. However, with many drugs available in both pioneer and generic forms, the question arises: Is there a meaningful difference between the two?

For veterinarians and producers, the decision involves more than just the label. Understanding the approval process, economics and practical considerations behind generic and pioneer drugs can help guide responsible choices that support animal health, food safety and economic sustainability.

What are Pioneer and Generic drugs?

Pioneer drugs are the original products developed by a pharmaceutical company that have an approved new animal drug application (NADA). They are protected by patents, which give the company exclusive marketing rights for a period of time. This exclusivity allowed the manufacturer to recoup the significant investment made in research, development and regulatory approval.

Generic drugs enter the market once those patents expire and have an approved abbreviated NADA (ANADA). A generic contains the same active ingredient, in the same dosage form and strength, and is administered through the same route as its brand name counterpart. In other words, a generic drug must deliver the same therapeutic effect as the brand name drug.

The key differences often lie in the inactive ingredients, such as stabilizers, preservatives or carriers, that can vary between products. These differences generally do not affect stability or efficacy, but may influence characteristics such as palatability or ease of administration.

Approval and Regulatory Oversight

Both pioneer and generic veterinary drugs are regulated by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. However, the approval pathways differ:

Pioneer drug approval requires a company to submit an NADA. This includes extensive studies to prove the product’s safety for the target species, its effectiveness against the labeled condition, tolerance in the animal, food safety data (residue studies for milk and meat) and environmental impact. These studies often involve large clinical trials and can take years to complete.
Generic approval follows the ANADA process. Instead of repeating all of the brand name drug’s trials, the generic manufacturer must prove bioequivalence — that the drug behaves the same way in the animal’s body as the original product. Generics must also demonstrate consistent manufacturing practices and establish withdrawal times for milk and meat.

The result is that generics are held to rigorous standards of safety and efficacy. They are not weaker or inferior, they simply follow a more streamlined approval process as the groundwork has already been laid by the pioneer product.

Economics

One of the most notable differences between pioneer and generic drugs is cost. For producers, generic options can significantly reduce the cost of herd-level treatment, which is an important factor when treating dozens or hundreds of animals. For veterinarians, cost can influence prescribing practices and client satisfaction. Offering effective but more affordable treatment options might improve compliance and strengthen the veterinarian-producer relationship. In the long term, the availability of generics supports more sustainable herd health programs, particularly for common or recurring conditions.

Clinical and Practical Considerations

Does it work? vs. Did it work here?

When speaking on generic drugs, one of the key distinctions Dr. Nora Schrag, from Kansas State University, pointed out was the difference between whether a drug works and whether a drug worked in a specific production environment.

“‘Does the thing in the bottle work’ is a fundamentally very different question than ‘did it work,’ Schrag says. “‘Did it work’ includes the stuff in the bottle, but it also includes the people that are getting the stuff in the bottle into the critter, it includes the critters, it includes the weather, it includes everything else.”

Outcomes are influenced not just by the drug but also by management. Measuring whether a drug worked in a particular production setting requires keeping good records, monitoring success rates and comparing farm outcomes to peer benchmarks.

While generics and pioneer drugs are equivalent in active ingredient and expected efficacy, a few practical points deserve attention:

Perception: Some producers might be skeptical, perceiving pioneer products as more trustworthy. Veterinarians play a critical role in reassuring clients with evidence-based guidance.
Formulation differences: Rarely, a difference in inactive ingredients might influence animal tolerance or ease of use.
Compliance and stewardship: Regardless of whether pioneer or generic, observing label directions, withdrawal periods and judicious antimicrobial use principles remains essential.

Guidance for Decision-Making

The choice of what drug to use should be a collaborative effort between veterinarians and producers.

Veterinarians should evaluate both clinical needs and economic considerations. Recommending a generic is often appropriate, but being prepared to explain the science behind equivalency helps build producer confidence.
Producers should recognize withdrawal times and responsible use requirements apply equally to both drug types. Partnering with veterinarians ensures choices align with herd health goals and regulatory compliance.
Both parties must consider not only cost, but also judicious antimicrobial use, animal welfare and food safety when selecting products.

Both brand name and pioneer drugs are indispensable tools for managing cattle health. FDA’s rigorous approval process ensures generics are just as safe and effective as their pioneer counterparts. Generics offer producers significant cost savings that support sustainable operations. Working with their clients, veterinarians can help guide drug choices to ensure effective treatment while promoting stewardship and trust.

In the end, the decision is not about brand loyalty but using evidence-based judgment to balance animal health, food safety and economics. Together, these values benefit both the beef and dairy industry.

5 Reasons Consumer Distrust In Our Food Supply Is Rising

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:04:41 GMT

Bread, check. Blueberries, check. As I wheel my grocery cart alongside the deli case, I’m taken aback at what I see. Rather, it is what I don’t see that has me wondering, “What in the world?” This section of my favorite grocery store is now almost completely empty, except for a couple of ham loaves and a renegade block of cheese.

In a slightly distraught tone I ask the worker behind the counter, “What’s going on?” He hesitates for a moment, then replies, “The store is in the process of changing suppliers for our deli products. We should have more of a selection next week.” Then it dawns on me: my favorite brand of deli meat and cheese, Boar’s Head, has officially been blacklisted by my go-to grocery store.

I should not have been surprised. Boar’s Head began its fall from public grace on July 26, 2024, when the company issued a recall for more than 207,528 lb. of product due to potential listeria contamination. The CDC linked the contamination to 61 illnesses and, tragically, 10 deaths. It was the worst listeria outbreak in the U.S. in over a decade.

The outbreak was ultimately traced to a production line at the company’s Jarratt, Va., plant. According to USDA inspection reports, which USA Today had to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request, 69 reports of non-compliance were recorded at the Jarratt plant between 2023 and 2024. What was in those reports was unsettling. Documentation of insects live and dead, black and green mold, mildew, dripping and standing water, as well as other unsanitary conditions within the plant in the weeks leading up to the July recall. In a move that was too little too late, Boar’s Head announced on Sept. 13, 2024 that the Jarratt plant would be closed permanently.

In 1906, Upton Sinclair published his famous novel “The Jungle,” which exposed the horrific conditions in the meatpacking industry at the time. The writer’s work proved to be an instant bestseller to the masses. The irony is that nearly 120 years later, one might find it hard to discern whether they’re reading a current USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) report or a chapter straight out of “The Jungle.”

Just One Of Many
The Boar’s Head case was only one the high profile food recalls last year. Remember the E. coli contaminated onions on McDonald’s quarter pounders? Then, Costco issued a massive recall on their Kirkland Signature brand of organic eggs because of a threat of Salmonella. And to cap off the year with the scariest illness yet, on Dec. 18, 2024, the CDC confirmed a patient in Louisiana had been hospitalized with the nation’s first severe case of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus, aka the “bird flu.”

If it seems that the number of food recalls are coming at us at a more fast and furious pace than ever, then your gut instinct is spot on. The Food and Drug Administration, which reports food and cosmetics together, says 1,908 such products were recalled in the fiscal year that ended in September. That’s the highest number since 2019. Such a constant barrage of warnings is having a serious affect on consumers’ overall psyche — and not in a positive way. According to a September 2024 Gallup report, only 57% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the government to keep food safe. This number is a 27 point decrease since 2019, and is a record low for the Gallup Consumption Habits Poll since its inception in 1999.

This explosion of 20th century foodborne illnesses has me asking the same question I asked the worker behind the deli counter: “What’s going on?”

5 Reasons To Be Skeptical
There are multiple reasons consumers have good reason to be less confident in the safety of their food.

First, there’s the government. Second, more and more of our food is imported, which makes it harder to inspect. Third, you have a growing quest for more natural food, which sometimes circumvents traditional inspection channels. Fourth, industry consolidation means only a handful of players control both the production and processing. That’s not inherently a bad thing, but if something goes wrong, it’s probably going to be big. Finally, we now have the ability, through more technology and data, to find, detect and isolate the specific source of contamination and document it.

Time For An Overhaul
Food safety policy and implementation at the government level is in need of a serious overhaul. There is a chance it could actually happen. In 2018, the previous Trump administration proposed consolidating federal food oversight into a single agency with USDA.

There are so many common sense things that a fully functioning food agency could do. For one, start with better and more noticeable country of origin labeling (COOL) on imported foods. It should be prominent, displaying the country’s flag as the primary indicator of origin. If nothing else, we’ll all get better at geography. Next, companies that embrace new technologies that prevent contamination should be rewarded with tax credits. We do it for electric cars. Why not for safer food?

Finally, the most important change needs to come in the form of accountability and transparency both from the food industry itself and the government that regulates it. That didn’t happen in the case of Boar’s Head, and 10 people lost their lives because of it. In the age of AI and social media, those FSIS plant inspection reports should be posted on platforms such as X and Facebook for the public to see in real time. Without such transparency, we’re no better off than we were back in 1906.

FDA Looks to Consolidate its Food Policy and Regulation Divisions

Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:28:32 GMT

FDA wants to consolidate its food policy and regulation divisions in the wake of last year’s national baby-formula shortage. The agency was criticized for its slow response and other food safety concerns, as supply chain issues and a formula recall panicked parents and caregivers.

Abbott Laboratories, which makes Similac and other brands, halted production at its Sturgis, Mich., factory because of product safety concerns.

Read more: FDA Approves Lab-Grown Chicken for the First Time

“Today, I am announcing a new, transformative vision for the FDA Human Foods Program,” said Commissioner Robert Califf. “Creating a Human Foods Program under a single leader who reports directly to the Commissioner unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way.”

The revamped foods program would absorb the functions of Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Office of Food Policy and Response, as well as some of the work of the Office of Regulatory Affairs.

How it Works

The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) would continue as a separate office; “the relevant food safety activities will be closely coordinated” between the CVM director and the deputy commissioner for human foods, said Califf.

Read more: Conagra Recalls 2.5 Million Pounds of Canned Meat and Poultry Product

Under Califf’s proposal, the deputy commissioner for food “will have decision-making authority over policy, strategy and regulatory program activities within the Human Foods Program, as well as resource allocation and risk prioritization.”

An advisory committee of outside experts would look at “challenging and emerging issues in food safety, nutrition and innovative food technologies.”

Principal deputy commissioner Janet Woodcock said an “implementation and change” group of FDA managers already was laying the groundwork to make the reorganization a reality. “We look forward to sharing further details next month and in the future on our progress,” she said.

The deputy commissioner will be named by spring, Califf told the Associated Press.

Pfizer Vaccine Receives Full FDA Approval: “Now is the Time to Get Vaccinated,” White House Says

Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:50:48 GMT

Nearly nine months following the authorization of the first emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted a seal of approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, Comirnaty.

In an AgriTalk interview on Tuesday with host Chip Flory, Dr. Bechara Choucair, White House vaccination coordinator, discussed the FDA’s approval of Pfizer’s vaccine.

“We know there are a lot of people who are still undecided about the vaccine. And there are many reasons why some of these folks are undecided about the vaccine. But for the subset of these folks, and according to the Kaiser Family foundation, up to three out 10 of these folks are waiting to get the full approval of the FDA before they get vaccinated,” Choucair says. “If you’ve been waiting for this approval before you get the vaccine, now is the time go ahead and get vaccinated.”

Many have questioned whether the FDA would push approval for the Pfizer vaccine because so many people have already received the jab. Choucair explains the FDA’s acceptance of the vaccine wasn’t a political move. The decision was based on fact and scientific data.

“The FDA has gone through a very complex process to ensure the safety, the effectiveness, and the quality production of this vaccine. They have reviewed literally hundreds of thousands of pages worth of preclinical data, clinical data, and information. They’re reviewed details of the manufacturing process,” Choucair says. “They’ve gone through inspections at the sites in which the vaccine is made. We know the FDA has worked around the clock and has said that this was one of their top priorities. And we know the FDA is the gold stand for safety in the world. So I think people should absolutely be confident in that this vaccine has met its high standards, is safe, and is effective.”

With Pfizer leading the FDA approval charge, it begs the question if or when Moderna and Johnson & Johnson will follow suit.

“We know from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, both companies are still gathering final data and submitting their application materials. And the FDA has already said the COVID-19 vaccines are among their top priority,” Choucair told Flory. “Currently in the United States, we have three vaccines that are very safe and very effective. They’re effective at preventing you from getting the infection, but they are particularly effective in preventing you from getting more severe consequences after injection – like hospitalizations and deaths.”

Given that schools are reopening across the country with in-person classes, COVID-19 is likely to spike. However, Choucair says there is a spark of hope in the ongoing full approval of the Pfizer vaccine for teens and preteens.

“The vaccine has received full approval for 16 years old and older. Now, keep in mind that 12- to 15-year-olds will continue to receive the vaccine. Pfizer remains authorized for emergency use, and it is safe and effective, as we’ve heard from both the CDC and the FDA,” he says. “At this time, Pfizer has requested the full approval for the use of the vaccine and on individuals 16 and older. In July, Pfizer did say it would pursue separate approval for the 12-to-15-year age group once that additional six-month data comes out.”

Choucair told Flory the data attests to the effectiveness of the vaccine and the Pfizer option is working as anticipated.

“If you look at the overwhelming majority of hospitalizations related to COVID-19 in this country today, they are amongst those who are unvaccinated. You look at the overwhelming majority of people who are dying from COVID-19 today, they are by far unvaccinated. So the vaccines work. They’re effective; they’re safe. If you are still thinking about getting vaccinated, now is the time to roll up your sleeves and get that shot.”

An uptick in vaccinations seems likely with the FDA approving the Pfizer vaccine. However, it’s difficult to put into perspective how many Americans are vaccinated or unvaccinated. In his final thoughts, Choucair discussed the number of shots administered each day, as well as weekly averages.

“This is our path to getting this pandemic behind us. It all starts with more and more people getting vaccinated. And the fact remains that we’re seeing more and more people getting vaccinated every single day. We’ve averaged 800,000 doses per day over the last week or so. We have more than 470,000 people every single day, rolling-up their sleeves and getting that very first shot,” Choucair says. “We know people are realizing that this pandemic is not over. People are realizing this delta variant is much more contagious and they’re realizing there are more people in hospitals, more people dying, and we want to make sure they’re protecting themselves, and their communities.”

Listen to Chip Flory’s full interview with Dr. Bechara Choucair, White House vaccination coordinator, here.

FDA Releases Draft Guidance for Labeling Plant-Based Animal-Derived Foods

On Monday, Jan. 6, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance on labeling plant-based foods that are marketed and sold as alternatives to conventional animal products and a public comment period is open.

“Because definitions and standards of identity have not been established for plant-based alternatives, these foods are non-standardized foods and must be labeled with their common or usual names, or in the absence thereof, a statement of identity that accurately describes the food,” according to the draft guidelines.

According to the FDA, consumer demand for plant-based alternatives to animal products including eggs, seafood, poultry, meat, and dairy has increased over time. The total U.S. retail plant-based food dollar sales grew from $5.5 billion in 2019 to $8.1 billion in 2023.

“Consumers should be able to easily see and determine the particular plant source when looking at the name of the food on the label,” the document says.

Currently there are no established guidelines for labeling plant-based alternative meat products and the draft of the guidelines aims to answer several questions including:

What should be included in the statement of identity for a plant-based alternative food that also includes the name of a food that has an established definition and standard of identity (e.g., “cheddar cheese”)?
What are important considerations when using “plant-based [animal derived food]” (e.g., “plant-based fish nuggets,” “plant-based sausage,” etc.) as part of the name for plant-based alternative foods?
How should plant-based alternative foods that are blends of different plant sources be labeled?
What are important considerations when using “[animal or meat]-free” or “non[animal or meat]” in the labeling of plant-based alternative foods?
What are important considerations when using a modified spelling, such as Chik’N, Be’f, Cheeze, as a name for plant-based alternative foods?
How should the statement of identity appear on the label?
What are important considerations when labeling plant-based alternative foods as “vegan” or “meat-free”?
Can vignettes or other statements be used to convey characterizing flavors?

Public comments are being accepted through May 5, 2025. Use this link to review document and comment.

Your next read: GOP to Propose ‘Biggest Bill in American History'; Includes Tax Cuts, Deregulation and Border Security