FASTER Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance food safety for individuals with Celiac disease and gluten sensitivities by requiring clearer labeling of barley, rye, and oats as allergens, while also promoting research into Celiac disease.
What it actually does
This bill, the FASTER Act of 2026, expands the definition of "major food allergens" under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to include barley, rye, and oats, alongside wheat, by creating a new category called "gluten-containing grain." It mandates the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to update its compliance policies within one year and makes the new labeling requirements effective one year after enactment. Additionally, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit a report on Celiac disease prevalence, diagnostics, prevention, risk reduction, and therapeutics.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step to protect the health of millions of Americans with Celiac disease or non-Celiac gluten sensitivity, who currently lack adequate labeling protections for barley, rye, and oats. They contend that clearer labeling will prevent accidental consumption, reduce health risks, and improve quality of life, aligning with previous successful efforts to label other major allergens. The report on Celiac disease will also advance understanding and treatment options for this serious condition.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding the definition of major food allergens to include barley, rye, and oats could impose significant new compliance burdens and costs on food manufacturers, potentially leading to increased food prices for consumers. They may also contend that existing "gluten-free" labeling regulations already provide sufficient protection for those with Celiac disease, and that adding these grains to the "major allergen" list might cause unnecessary alarm or confusion for the general public, as gluten sensitivity is distinct from a typical IgE-mediated food allergy.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)
Redefining "Major Food Allergen" to Include Gluten-Containing Grains
This provision amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to change the existing "wheat" allergen category to "gluten-containing grain." It then explicitly defines "gluten-containing grain" to include wheat, rye, barley, and oats, as well as crossbred hybrids like triticale. This means that foods containing barley, rye, or oats will now be required to be labeled as containing a "major food allergen" in the same manner as the existing eight major allergens.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this expansion is vital for public health, as Celiac disease is a serious autoimmune condition triggered by gluten, and many individuals also suffer from non-Celiac gluten sensitivity. They assert that current labeling laws are insufficient because barley, rye, and oats, which contain gluten, are not explicitly listed as major allergens, leading to confusion and dangerous exposures. This change would provide necessary clarity and protection, similar to how other common allergens are handled.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that Celiac disease is an autoimmune condition, not a typical IgE-mediated allergy, and that existing "gluten-free" labeling standards already address the needs of this population. They may contend that classifying these grains as "major food allergens" could lead to over-regulation, increased production costs for food manufacturers, and potential consumer confusion, as the physiological response to gluten is different from that to, for example, peanuts or shellfish.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the public health need for clearer labeling for individuals with Celiac disease and gluten sensitivities against the potential increased compliance costs and regulatory burden on the food industry. It also navigates the distinction between an autoimmune reaction (Celiac disease) and a traditional IgE-mediated allergic reaction in the context of food allergen labeling.
Section 2(b)
Mandate for FDA to Update Compliance Policies
This provision requires the Administrator of Food and Drugs (FDA) to revise all sections of its Manual of Compliance Policy Guides related to major food allergens within one year of the bill's enactment. This ensures that FDA's enforcement and guidance documents reflect the new definition of "gluten-containing grain" as a major food allergen.
Section 2(c)
One-Year Implementation Period for New Labeling Rules
This section specifies that the new labeling requirements for gluten-containing grains will apply to any food introduced into interstate commerce one year after the date of the bill's enactment. This provides food manufacturers with a grace period to adjust their ingredient sourcing, production processes, and labeling to comply with the updated regulations.
Section 3
Mandate for HHS Report on Celiac Disease
This provision requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit a comprehensive report to Congress within one year of the bill's enactment. The report must cover various aspects of Celiac disease, including its prevalence, severity of allergic reactions, gaps in surveillance data, development of diagnostics, prevention methods, risk reduction strategies, and new therapeutics.
Defines "gluten-containing grain" by listing specific genera for wheat (Triticum), rye (Secale), barley (Hordeum), and oats (Avena sativa), including crossbred hybrids like triticale.
Section 2(tt)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to ensure precise legal definitions and avoid ambiguity in regulatory enforcement.
Case for: Supporters argue that precise botanical definitions are crucial for clear regulatory boundaries, ensuring that all relevant species and hybrids are covered, and preventing loopholes that could undermine the bill's intent to protect individuals from gluten exposure.
Case against: No specific case against the precision itself, but some might argue that such detail can make the law less accessible to non-experts, though this is a common feature of technical legislation.
Estimated impact: Ensures comprehensive coverage of gluten-containing grains, impacting all food products containing these specific botanical varieties.
States that the amendments related to major food allergens will apply to food introduced into interstate commerce on or after one year from the date of enactment.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to provide a transition period for regulated entities to comply with new rules. It's a practical necessity, not evasive.
Case for: Proponents argue this delay is essential for the food industry to update supply chains, reformulate products, and redesign labels, preventing massive disruptions and ensuring a smoother, more effective transition to the new labeling standards.
Case against: Consumer advocates might argue that a one-year delay postpones critical health protections for individuals with Celiac disease and gluten sensitivities, potentially leading to continued accidental exposures during the interim period.
Estimated impact: Delays the full public health benefit of the labeling changes for one year, while providing significant operational flexibility for the food industry.