State-level scrutiny of Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) substances is no longer limited to New York. While New York’s Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act has drawn significant attention because it has passed both chambers and is awaiting the Governor’s signature, similar legislation has also been introduced in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California.
Taken together, these proposals signal a broader shift in how states are approaching food additive oversight, public disclosure, and the longstanding use of self-affirmed GRAS conclusions. For food manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, and brand owners, the message is becoming clearer: self-affirmed GRAS is facing increasing pressure at the state level.
Historically, companies have had two primary pathways for establishing GRAS status in the United States:
Both pathways rely on the same scientific foundation, including:
What is changing is not the science behind GRAS, but the level of transparency and state oversight expected when companies rely on self-determined conclusions that have not been submitted to the FDA.
Recent state proposals share a common policy theme: if a company is relying on a self-affirmed GRAS conclusion for an ingredient or new use, the state may require that conclusion to be disclosed publicly, supported by a dossier-level submission, and made available through a searchable database.
That said, the bills are not identical.
| State | Bill | Current Status | Core Trigger | Public Database | Key Exemptions | Notable Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | S1239F | Passed Senate & Assembly; awaiting Governor’s signature | It would be unlawful to sell, use, or introduce a GRAS substance unless a report is submitted and included in the database | Yes | FDA “no questions” letters; prior sanctioned/regulated substances; food contact substances; NDIs acknowledged by FDA; pre-1958 ingredients; small businesses (≤100 employees, independently owned) | Also bans FD&C Red No. 3, potassium bromate, and propylparaben; limits reliance on FDA safety recognition as a defense; allows retailer sell-through for a defined transition period |
| Pennsylvania | HB 1130 | Introduced; referred to committee | It would be unlawful to sell, use, or make a new use of a GRAS substance unless a report is filed and listed in the database | Yes | FDA “no questions” letters; prior sanctioned/regulated substances; food contact substances; NDIs acknowledged by FDA; pre-1958 ingredients; substances approved by rulemaking; small businesses exempt from the prohibition | Closely mirrors the federal GRAS notice framework; requires publicly available safety data; authorizes fees; effective six months after enactment |
| New Jersey | S3277 | Introduced February 2, 2026 | Annual reporting required for each new use of a food additive that is the subject of a GRAS determination | Yes | FDA “no questions” letters; prior sanctioned/regulated substances; food contact substances; pre-1958 ingredients; substances approved by the commissioner; cottage food operators | Narrower than NY and PA; applies to food and nonalcoholic beverages sold in the state; reports must be published within six months; includes civil penalties |
| California | AB 2034 | Introduced and amended in Assembly | Food additives or dietary ingredients would be treated as unsafe unless they meet specific notice, listing, and licensing requirements or fall within enumerated exceptions | Yes | FDA “no questions” letters; prior sanctioned/approved or GRAS substances; food contact substances; NDIs acknowledged by FDA; pre-1958 ingredients; small parties under a sales threshold | Broadest bill of the group; adds a state licensing process, public objection period, possible license denial or revocation, reassessment framework, user fees, and additional ingredient disclosure obligations for packaged foods |
New York remains the most immediate concern because it is the furthest along procedurally.
Under S1239F, it would be unlawful to sell, offer for sale, use in manufacturing, or introduce a new use of a GRAS substance in food unless a report has been submitted to the state and made available in a public database.
The bill effectively requires a full GRAS dossier, including:
The bill also provides that data establishing GRAS must be based on publicly available information and not on trade secrets.
In addition to the disclosure regime, New York would ban:
It also includes a small business exemption for independently owned and operated businesses with 100 or fewer employees, along with exemptions for substances that already fall within recognized federal pathways.
Pennsylvania’s HB 1130 is structurally very close to the New York approach.
Like New York, it would make it unlawful to sell, use, or make a new use of a GRAS substance unless:
The bill incorporates the federal GRAS notice content requirements by reference, meaning the submission would effectively mirror a full GRAS notice package. It also states that data establishing general recognition of safety must be based on publicly available information and not on trade secrets.
Pennsylvania includes a wide set of exemptions similar to New York, including:
One notable difference is timing: the Pennsylvania bill states that it would take effect six months after enactment.
New Jersey’s S3277 is narrower in scope than the New York and Pennsylvania proposals, but it still reflects the same underlying policy direction.
Rather than creating a broad prohibition tied to all GRAS substances, it focuses on each new use of a food additive that is the subject of a GRAS determination. Manufacturers of food sold in New Jersey would need to provide notice through an annual report to the Department of Health.
The content requirements are extensive and dossier-like, including:
New Jersey also requires that the underlying safety basis be publicly available and not based on trade secrets. The state would publish a searchable database, and the commissioner would post report information within six months of receipt.
Its exemptions overlap with the other states, including FDA “no questions” letters, prior sanctioned or regulated substances, food contact substances, and certain pre-1958 ingredients. It also excludes cottage food operators.
California’s AB 2034 is the broadest of the bills reviewed and appears to go beyond a simple GRAS disclosure model.
The bill would treat certain food additives and dietary ingredients as unsafe unless they fall within specified exceptions or comply with a state notice, public listing, and licensing process. For substances introduced after January 1, 1958 and before January 1, 2027, continued use would depend on compliance with the state framework.
Beginning July 1, 2027, a submitter would need to provide a notice containing the same information required under the federal GRAS notice regulations. If complete, the notice would be published in a public database.
But California goes further by adding:
California also includes exemptions for FDA-reviewed GRAS notices, prior sanctioned or federally recognized substances, food contact substances, NDIs with FDA acknowledgment, and certain pre-1958 ingredients. Unlike New York’s employee-based small business exemption, California includes a sales-based threshold exemption for parties below a specified aggregate sales level.
For food and ingredient companies, the practical takeaway is that a self-affirmed GRAS conclusion may no longer be treated as purely internal if state-level disclosure regimes continue to expand.
Even if a bill does not become law in its current form, these proposals are establishing a legislative blueprint built around:
This creates new strategic questions for manufacturers:
The good news is that a properly prepared GRAS dossier should already contain much of what these state bills would require.
At dicentra, our GRAS dossiers are built to meet the same scientific and regulatory standards expected in FDA-facing submissions. That means any self-affirmed GRAS dossiers we have prepared for clients are already well-positioned for submission if a state-level reporting regime applies.
For companies that have internally developed their own dossiers, now is the time to assess whether those materials are:
In short, the strategic value of a well-prepared GRAS dossier is increasing.
dicentra supports companies at every stage of GRAS strategy, including:
As the regulatory environment evolves, companies that treat GRAS as a strategic regulatory asset rather than a simple internal conclusion will be best positioned to adapt.
New York may be the current headline, but it is no longer the whole story.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California show that state-level GRAS disclosure and additive oversight is becoming a broader legislative trend. While the exact mechanisms differ, the policy direction is consistent: more transparency, more scrutiny, and less room for undisclosed self-affirmed safety determinations.
For companies relying on self-affirmed GRAS today, the best next step is not to wait. It is to evaluate whether your dossier is defensible, complete, and ready for a world in which states may increasingly expect disclosure.
Need help preparing or reviewing your GRAS dossier?
Reach out to dicentra to ensure your ingredient strategy is ready for what comes next.
Disclaimer: This is a developing regulatory landscape. The status and scope of these state-level initiatives may evolve as legislation progresses. dicentra will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as more information becomes available.