Global Food Regulation Compliance: Strategies for Complex Standards

As food supply chains expand worldwide, compliance with an evolving global patchwork of food regulations is a significant obstacle for exporters. A food product that meets U.S. requirements may still be rejected abroad for various reasons, including the use of a restricted additive or the presence of chemical contaminants exceeding food safety thresholds.

For any company involved in international food trade, staying informed about global food regulation compliance is critical to avoid costly recalls and reputational damage. Ensuring compliance not only protects consumers but also safeguards the integrity of the global supply chain. 

While laboratory testing often plays an important role in compliance, companies that rely solely on routine safety and quality checks may miss the bigger picture. To navigate the complexity of global standards and avoid compliance pitfalls, food companies should utilize digital regulatory databases to track national requirements and scientific literature to understand the safety parameters, as well as to identify solutions for emerging safety, nutrition, and formulation challenges.

Effectively Addressing Complex Regulatory Challenges Worldwide

Biological hazards are generally regulated in a consistent and harmonized manner among major trading partners worldwide. However, global alignment is less consistent for food additives and chemical contaminants, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape for companies involved in international trade. A food additive approved in one country may be completely prohibited in another, which complicates product formulation and market access. 

While the international Codex Alimentarius standards provide a baseline for the food regulations of many countries, full harmonization with these standards is rare. Some national food regulations are generally aligned with the Codex standards, but countries often develop additional regulations and food safety parameters based on local concerns, policy priorities, and risk assessments (FAO/WHO, 2024).

Regulatory Approaches to Food Additives and Ingredients

Regulatory systems for food additives vary significantly from country to country, and the global patchwork of food additive regulations adds an extra layer of complexity. In some countries, a positive list system is employed for food additives, which means only pre-approved additives are permitted in foods according to specific conditions. The European Union has an established positive list system for the use of food additives, which is frequently revised to reflect the results of new risk assessments. China and Japan have established a positive list system for food additives. In China, the national standard GB 2760 lists the currently permitted additives and approved uses by food category (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2024).

In Canada, the Lists of Permitted Additives specify the approved uses of additives by function (e.g. preservatives) with limits set for specific foods. If an additive is not listed, Health Canada requires a pre-market approval process (Health Canada, 2025).

In the United States, food additives may require FDA approval through a Food Additive Petition unless the additive is already listed as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). Color additives require FDA approval and must comply with identity and purity requirements, and possibly batch certification. Flavoring substances are either GRAS, approved as food additives, or exempt from formal approval if derived from natural sources (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024). 

Several major U.S. trading partners prohibit additives that are legal in the United States, such as the sweetener aspartame and preservatives like butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and propylparaben. Conversely, some countries permit food or color additives not authorized in the U.S., which creates a risk for recalls or import detentions when those products enter the American market.

In recent years, several U.S. state governments have introduced legislation that conflicts with the current U.S. FDA approval of certain food additives. The state laws have the potential to disrupt the national sale of many food products. The California Food Safety Act (AB-418) was the first significant state law to address perceived safety concerns from four food additives: Red Dye No. 3, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, and propylparaben (California Legislature, 2023). Since the enactment of the California law, more than 30 state bills have been introduced to restrict or ban specific additives. In recent months, new laws targeting food and color additives were finalized in Louisiana (SB-14; Louisiana Legislature, 2025), Texas (SB-25; Texas Legislature, 2025), and West Virginia (HB-2354; West Virginia Legislature, 2025).

Following the enactment of California’s law, several national food brands announced plans to reformulate products to remove the banned additives, particularly Red Dye No. 3 and potassium bromate. The emergence of state bans on food additives confirms that regulatory compliance is more than an international trade issue. Food companies must monitor the development of food additive restrictions at multiple regulatory levels to ensure compliance.

Managing Emerging Food Safety Risks

Inconsistent regulatory approaches to allergens, chemicals, and cultural restrictions further complicate global food trade. As the requirements vary widely from country to country, it is critical to monitor the emerging regulations and evolving risk assessments for these moving targets. 

Allergen Regulations and Labeling Updates

Emerging research on food allergens and evolving regulatory approaches to allergens complicate product development, consumer safety, and labeling. Researchers are evaluating additional foods, particularly fruits, as causes of food allergies, and the findings may lead to new or revised food regulations. For example, the FDA updated its allergen labeling guidance this year to remove coconut and other specific nut types from classification as a "tree nut" in terms of mandatory allergen labeling (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2025). Worldwide, clinical reports and increased research of allergic reactions to certain fruits (e.g. banana, kiwi) and novel food ingredients such as insect proteins may result in new or revised labeling requirements (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2025). 

Labeling Claims

In general, “clean label” food products result from the removal of controversial ingredients, such as specific preservatives or artificial colors, but the marketing terms are not legally defined. While consumers commonly perceive “clean label” foods as healthier, the elimination of common preservatives such as sodium benzoate or sorbic acid can result in microbial growth and potential food safety issues. Moreover, the addition of natural alternatives, including plant extracts and essential oils, can introduce new safety concerns. 

Cultural and Religious Ingredient Restrictions

Halal and kosher certifications are essential for food products in many Middle Eastern markets, as they ensure compliance with religious dietary laws. Ingredients derived from certain animal sources or additives produced through unapproved processes—such as some forms of vanilla extract—may be restricted or prohibited under these regulations. Food companies must carefully evaluate sourcing and production methods to meet these requirements and maintain market access.

Chemical Contaminants and Maximum Residue Limits

Food companies face a constantly shifting regulatory landscape when it comes to pesticide residues and chemical contaminants. Maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides—as well as safety thresholds for heavy metals and mycotoxins—vary widely worldwide and are frequently revised. For example, pesticides allowed on agricultural commodities in one country may be banned by another country (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2025). The European Union has comprehensive rules for chemical contaminants, which are typically more stringent than limits set in the U.S. or other markets. Without ongoing monitoring of the evolving limits, companies risk non-compliance and potential exposure to legal consequences, recalls, and reputational damage (European Commission, 2025).

Strategic Compliance Tools for Global Food Regulation Compliance

Complying with global food regulations can be like solving a Rubik’s Cube in which each turn changes the entire puzzle or navigating a shifting maze. In other words, a barrier or change in the regulations of one market can have ripple effects across supply chains. 

A strategic approach to compliance with current and emerging food regulations requires effective monitoring of evolving food regulations, food safety incidents, and emerging food science. The routine monitoring of global food regulations is critical as regulatory landscapes can evolve in response to new scientific research, emerging public health issues, and trade negotiations. 

In an era where consumer awareness and international trade intersect, the effective monitoring of food regulations and emerging food safety issues is not optional. It is a core pillar of responsible, sustainable, and competitive food business practices. Proactive companies gain a dual advantage of protecting consumers while safeguarding their brand’s integrity. A proactive approach to food safety and regulatory compliance requires the use of digital tools for rapid access to updates of food regulations worldwide and research services.

Custom regulatory research services help food companies stay ahead of legislative changes, interpret complex scientific data, and proactively reformulate products to avoid the pitfalls of non-compliance. These services can track trends in chemical contaminant limits, identify emerging restrictions on food additives and ingredients, and deliver alerts on regulatory updates in key markets.  

Scientific literature is another critical resource. A wealth of authoritative information concerning microbiological, chemical, and nutritional concerns is available in the scientific literature. Information obtained from scientific literature can provide a foundation for understanding the safety and technical functions of new ingredients, provide clinical research to support a health claim, or identify potential allergic reactions from a specific food or raw material.

Digital Monitoring Tools for Food Regulations

Mérieux NutriSciences provides digital food compliance tools and research services to address scientific and regulatory challenges. Digital food compliance tools featuring real-time data, analytics, and custom reports play a vital role in assisting food companies to identify food risks and to monitor emerging food safety threats such as new food contaminants or evolving regulations. 

Our strategic digital tools for regulatory compliance include:

• Safety HUD is our digital tool for monitoring global food safety and fraud alerts involving food products and raw materials in 85 countries.
    
• Regulatory Update is our tool for monitoring official food regulations in 76 countries.
  
  
• Limit Detector is our tool for searching the national regulatory limits of chemical and biological contaminants in food products. 

Maintain compliance with evolving global food regulation standards using our regulatory services and digital compliance tools.  Reach out to our team to ensure your products meet international standards and protect your brand.

References

California Legislature. (2023). AB-418: California Food Safety Act. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB418 

European Commission. (2025, August 28). Regulation of pesticide residues in the EU – Questions and answers. https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/maximum-residue-levels/qas-pesticides_en

FAO/WHO. (2024, October). Use and impact of Codex texts: Report of the Codex survey 2023. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ef601bf2-0c9b-4ca4-a681-4e526b0f6d5a/content 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). Review and establish threshold levels in foods for the priority allergens. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f5004a11-9c0c-4ee5-b5b9-7077e9548693/content  

Health Canada. (2025, March 7). Food additives: Overview. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives.html 

Louisiana Legislature. (2025). SB-14. Louisiana State Legislature. https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=25rs&b=SB14&sbi=y 

Texas Legislature. (2025). SB-25. Texas Legislature Online. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB25 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (2024). China: Usage standard for food additives finalized. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/china-usage-standard-food-additives-finalized 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, August 11). About pesticide tolerances. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-tolerances/about-pesticide-tolerances 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024, July 11). Understanding how the FDA regulates food additives and GRAS ingredients. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-and-gras-ingredients-information-consumers/understanding-how-fda-regulates-food-additives-and-gras-ingredients 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2025, January). Questions and answers regarding food allergens, including the food allergen labeling requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Edition 5). https://www.fda.gov/media/117410/download 

West Virginia Legislature. (2025). HB-2354. West Virginia Legislature. https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/Bills_history.cfm?input=2354&year=2025&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill