Five Hot Topics for Beverage and Food Industry Founders, Investors, and Executives in 2026

From tariff uncertainty and GLP-1 disruption to the phase-out of synthetic food dyes and growing “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiatives, industry stakeholders must navigate unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Companies that act proactively to understand and address these interconnected challenges will be best positioned to capitalize on emerging opportunities and manage risk. Below, we highlight the most significant legal trends we expect to shape the beverage and food industry in 2026.

1. Navigating Continued Tariff Uncertainty and Trade Disruption

The recent US Supreme Court case and the Trump Administration’s tariff policies continue to create significant uncertainty for beverage and food companies. The current scenario is composed of multiple tariffs, a variety of bilateral trade deals, an increase in customs enforcement actions, and increased scrutiny of transshipment. These new measures have reshaped the trade landscape, and the economic impact is still being felt by companies. 

Adding another layer of complexity, the Supreme Court’s recently issued decision holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. However, the Supreme Court did not speak to the IEEPA refund process, which we expect will be addressed on remand by the US Court of International Trade, and there are regulatory and operational details that need to be updated for implementation of this decision to entries going forward. Furthermore, even without the ability to tariff based on the IEEPA, the Administration retains the ability to enact tariffs through other statutory provisions. 

For the beverage and food industry, tariffs on aluminum imports have escalated packaging costs, while duties on imports from key trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union, continue to reshape supply chains. Mexico and Canada together supply approximately 42% of all US food and beverage imports, making these trade relationships particularly critical. Alcohol, dairy, confectionery, and frozen products face particular exposure. Further, the future of North American trade relations is at stake this year, as the trilateral review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is set for July 1. 

The stakes are high, and beverage and food companies should treat the current environment as a strategic inflection point. Supply chain diversification, sourcing visibility, and long-term contract negotiations with stable pricing terms can help mitigate risks. Given the level of complexity of this new trade landscape and the new enforcement actions, customs compliance should be a priority.

2. GLP-1 Medications and the Reshaping of Consumer Demand

GLP-1 weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound are fundamentally reshaping how Americans eat and shop. According to recent data, approximately 12% of US adults are now taking GLP-1 medications, with the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index showing the US obesity rate has dropped from 39.9% to 37% in the past three years. By 2030, some studies show that GLP-1 user households are projected to account for 35% of all food and beverage units sold.

These medications suppress appetite and push consumers toward healthier, more convenient offerings with high protein, fiber, and hydration benefits. Categories experiencing growth include produce, deli items, snack bars, yogurt, and lower-sugar carbonated beverages. Categories facing pressure include indulgent snacks, sugary beverages, alcohol, and large-portion products. Notably, GLP-1 users report reduced interest in alcohol, which has implications for beverage producers and restaurants where alcohol drives margins. These changes will impact consumer demands, and as a result may impact company production and valuations.

3. Food Additives and Synthetic Colorants in the Governmental Crosshairs 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and US Department of Health and Human Services have announced plans to phase out all currently authorized “petroleum-based” synthetic food dyes from the US food supply by the end of 2026. Last April, the FDA announced that it would work with industry to eliminate use of six such dyes — FD&C Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, and Green No. 3 — in food by the end of this year. Additionally, the FDA intends to revoke authorization for two lesser-used dyes, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, very soon, and has requested that companies eliminate food use of FD&C Red No. 3 sooner than the current 2027 deadline. In their place, the FDA authorized use of four naturally occurring or naturally derived food colorants. Namely, Galdieria extract blue (from microalgae), Gardenia blue (from the fruit of the Cape jasmine plant), butterfly pea flower extract (another blue), and calcium phosphate (a white mineral). In addition, the FDA has just authorized the use of beetroot red and an expansion of the food uses of spirulina extract (yet another blue, from algae). However, the development of natural colorants to replace synthetic dyes may be a slow process, since potential replacements must first be identified in nature, then shown to be stable when subjected to baking and other manufacturing processes and finally shown to be safe and free of contaminants at the proposed levels of use. The natural alternatives are also likely to be significantly more expensive than the synthetic versions they are replacing, and may offer a narrower range of available colors, at least for a while. The “carrot” now offered by the FDA to food manufacturers who eliminate use of all currently authorized FD&C synthetic colorants is the ability to make certain label claims: “Made without artificial food colors/colorings,” “No artificial color/colors/coloring,” or “No added artificial color/colors/coloring.”

While much of the synthetic food colorant phase-out relies on voluntary industry compliance rather than formal rulemaking, companies also face significant pressure from an expanding patchwork of state laws. California, West Virginia, Arizona, Virginia, and Texas have already enacted legislation banning certain dyes from school lunches or statewide food sales, with multiple bills that target food additives being introduced in many more state legislatures.

For food additives in general, the FDA’s “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) pathway remains under intense scrutiny, and the FDA has been directed to explore elimination of the self-affirmed GRAS pathway that allows companies to introduce ingredients without formal FDA review. The agency is expected to propose rulemaking on mandatory GRAS notification in the coming months, so companies relying on self-affirmed GRAS determinations should prepare for this change. Conducting thorough safety assessments and maintaining complete documentation, as well as ensuring alignment with evolving state food additive disclosure laws, will be critical. The GRAS regulatory landscape could change significantly by year-end, and companies should monitor both federal rulemaking and state legislative activity closely.

Food additives have also become the target of the MAHA movement and its declared war on ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Although we have yet to see an official federal definition of UPFs, the state of California recently took the matter into its own hands and passed legislation addressing UPFs in school meals and providing the necessary UPF definition, which includes foods and beverages containing a variety of additives (e.g., thickeners, emulsifiers, non-nutritive sweeteners, and non-natural colors and flavors), as well as excessive amounts of saturated fats, added sugar, and sodium. Where California leads, other states will undoubtedly follow. Companies should anticipate increased regulatory and litigation scrutiny of product formulations, ingredient lists, and marketing claims. Portfolio rationalization, including divestitures of legacy brands associated with UPF characteristics, may accelerate as companies seek to limit exposure to ongoing policy changes. Reformulation strategies that emphasize whole food ingredients, reduced added sugars, and “clean label” positioning will become increasingly valuable.

Litigation challenging food ingredients, including lawsuits challenging “Natural Flavors” and “No Preservatives” claims, is expected to expand in 2026. Companies should conduct thorough reviews of ingredient claims and marketing language to ensure accuracy and defensibility. Particular attention should be paid to “clean label” claims, “natural” descriptors, and health-related marketing. Documentation of ingredient sourcing, safety assessments, and regulatory compliance will be critical for litigation defense.

4. Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labeling and Marketing Claims

The FDA has announced its intent to issue a final rule on front-of-pack nutrition labeling in 2026. The rule is expected to require standardized nutrition information tied to saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars on the principal display panel of certain food products. This development could increase scrutiny of product formulations and labeling claims while providing new hooks for state enforcement and private litigation.

Canada’s front-of-package nutrition symbol requirements became mandatory on January 1, requiring food companies to include warning symbols on foods high in saturated fat, sugars, and sodium. Exporters should prepare now for labeling, documentation, and traceability impacts from both US and international requirements.

Companies should review product portfolios to assess exposure to front-of-pack labeling requirements and consider reformulation to avoid triggering warning symbols. Marketing teams should prepare for potential changes to “healthy” and other nutrient content claims, as the FDA’s ongoing modernization of Standards of Identity shifts regulatory analysis toward misbranding and consumer-perception standards.

5. M&A Resurgence and Portfolio Repositioning

With interest rate decreases on the horizon, pent-up buy-side demand, and sponsors looking to exit long-held assets, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity in the food and beverage space is expected to pick up in 2026. Of course, with significant headwinds still prevalent (e.g., evolving nutritional guidelines and regulatory landscapes, tariff uncertainty, and regional economic challenges caused by layoffs in the government and technology sectors), buyers are expected to remain focused on high-quality assets, such as those with consistent cash flow streams and proven concepts or products. Transaction diligence will continue to be intense, with a granular focus on exposure to litigation, regulatory, and enforcement trends. Also, both buyers and sellers may look to earn-outs and other contingent compensation to help close valuation gaps. Sellers preparing to go to market in 2026 should move quickly to identify and remedy potential diligence gaps or issues prior to commencing a sale process. Potential buyers should prepare for competitive processes for high-quality assets by having deal teams in place and ready to move quickly once potential targets are identified. Buyers should also remain focused on ensuring that key deal risks are addressed as part of the diligence and transaction documentation processes.