Understanding Grass-Fed Dairy: What the Labels Mean, How Standards Differ, and What the Research Shows

Kerrygold has become one of the most discussed butter brands in the American grocery aisle. Its distinctive gold foil packaging, rich flavor, and “grass-fed” marketing have made it the best-selling imported butter in the United States and a fixture in conversations about food quality, farming practices, and label transparency. But a straightforward question — is Kerrygold actually grass-fed? — turns out to have a complicated answer that reveals significant gaps in how dairy products are labeled and regulated in the United States.

This article examines what “grass-fed” means in the context of dairy, how Irish farming standards compare to American ones, what a class-action lawsuit revealed about Kerrygold’s labeling claims, and what consumers should know when navigating the grass-fed dairy market in 2026.

What “Grass-Fed” Means — and What It Does Not

The term “grass-fed” does not have a single, universally enforced definition in the United States. This is the most important fact consumers need to understand, and it applies to both beef and dairy products.

For beef, the USDA withdrew its voluntary grass-fed marketing claim standard in 2016, leaving the term without a federal definition. Third-party certification programs — most notably the American Grassfed Association (AGA) and the PCO 100% Grassfed certification — have stepped in to fill the gap, but their standards are voluntary and carry no regulatory force. For dairy products, the situation is even less defined. The FDA, which regulates most dairy labeling in the United States, has never established a formal standard for “grass-fed” claims on milk, butter, cheese, or yogurt. This means any dairy company can use the term “grass-fed” on its packaging without meeting any specific threshold for how much grass its cows actually eat.

The absence of a regulatory definition creates a spectrum of practices that all fall under the same label. At one end, 100% grass-fed dairy comes from cows that eat nothing but fresh pasture and stored forage (hay and silage made from grass) for their entire lives. At the other end, a dairy product labeled “grass-fed” could come from cows that spend most of their time in confinement barns eating grain-based feed, supplemented with some hay or pasture access for a portion of the year. Both products can legally carry the same claim in the United States.

How Irish Dairy Farming Works

Ireland’s dairy farming system is fundamentally different from the dominant American model, and understanding this difference is essential to evaluating Kerrygold’s claims.

Ireland has a temperate maritime climate with high rainfall and mild winters — conditions that produce lush, fast-growing pasture for much of the year. Irish dairy farming has historically been built around this natural advantage: cows graze outdoors on grass during the growing season (typically March through November) and eat stored grass (silage and hay) during the winter months. This pasture-based system is not a marketing choice — it is the economic foundation of Irish agriculture, because grass is cheaper than grain feed in Ireland’s climate.

According to the Irish government’s Bord Bia (Irish Food Board), Irish dairy cows spend an average of 250 days per year on pasture, and grass and grass-based forage (silage, hay) constitute approximately 95% of their diet over the course of a year. During the winter months, when cows are housed indoors, they eat silage made from grass harvested during the summer, supplemented with small amounts of concentrate feed (typically a grain-based mix providing additional energy and protein during peak lactation).

The Bord Bia Grass-Fed Standard

In 2018, Ireland became the first country in the world to establish a national, government-backed Grass-Fed Standard for dairy. Administered by Bord Bia as part of its Sustainable Dairy Assurance Scheme (SDAS), the standard requires that participating farms meet specific criteria: cows must graze on pasture for a minimum of 240 days per year, and grass and grass-based forage must make up at least 90% of their diet on a dry matter basis. The standard is verified through on-farm audits, satellite monitoring of pasture usage, and review of feed purchase records.

Kerrygold’s parent company, Ornua (formerly the Irish Dairy Board), is a cooperative that sources milk from approximately 14,000 family farms across Ireland. All of these farms participate in the SDAS and are verified under the Bord Bia Grass-Fed Standard. Ornua states that Kerrygold cows are “grass-fed all year round” — eating fresh grass during the grazing season and stored grass (silage) during winter.

This is not 100% grass-fed in the strictest sense. The 90% grass diet threshold means that up to 10% of a cow’s diet can consist of non-grass feed, typically grain-based concentrates. During peak lactation — the period shortly after calving when a cow’s energy demands are highest — farmers commonly supplement with concentrates to prevent metabolic stress and maintain milk production. This is standard practice in pasture-based dairy systems worldwide and is not unique to Ireland.

The Kerrygold Lawsuit: What It Revealed

In 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Ornua in U.S. federal court, alleging that Kerrygold’s “Milk from Grass-Fed Cows” label was misleading because the cows’ diet included grain-based supplements. The plaintiffs argued that consumers who paid a premium price for Kerrygold butter did so based on the belief that the cows ate an exclusively grass diet — and that the presence of any grain feed made the “grass-fed” claim deceptive.

In its defense, Ornua acknowledged that its cows received supplementary feed (concentrates) in addition to grass and grass silage. However, the company argued — and the court ultimately agreed — that the “grass-fed” claim was not misleading because: (1) “grass-fed” has no legally binding definition in the United States for dairy products, (2) a reasonable consumer would not interpret “grass-fed” to mean an exclusively grass diet with zero supplementation, and (3) the label said “Milk from Grass-Fed Cows,” not “100% grass-fed.”

The case was dismissed. But the lawsuit highlighted a fundamental problem in American food labeling: when terms like “grass-fed” have no regulatory definition, consumers have no reliable way to know what they are actually buying, and companies face no meaningful standard to meet. The same word can describe radically different farming practices depending on the producer, the country, and the certification (if any) behind the claim.

Is Kerrygold Better Than Conventional Butter?

From a farming practice standpoint, the answer is clearly yes. Kerrygold butter comes from cows that spend the majority of their lives on pasture eating a diet composed primarily of grass. Conventional American butter typically comes from cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that eat a diet dominated by corn, soy, and other grain-based feeds, with little or no pasture access.

From a nutritional standpoint, the research is more nuanced but still favors grass-fed dairy. A 2019 review published in Food Science and Nutrition found that milk from pasture-fed cows consistently contains higher concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), fat-soluble vitamins (particularly vitamins A, E, and K2), and beta-carotene (the pigment responsible for grass-fed butter’s deeper yellow color) compared to milk from grain-fed cows. A 2018 study published in Food Chemistry specifically analyzed Irish grass-fed butter and found significantly higher levels of CLA, vaccenic acid, and omega-3 fatty acids compared to butter from grain-fed herds.

The higher beta-carotene content is visually apparent: Kerrygold’s deep golden color comes directly from the carotenoid pigments in fresh grass, which transfer into the milk fat. Conventional butter is often paler and may require added coloring (typically annatto) to achieve a consistent yellow appearance. Kerrygold does not add coloring to its butter.

What Kerrygold Is Not

It is important to be clear about what Kerrygold does not claim and does not offer:

It is not organic. Kerrygold butter is not certified organic under either USDA or EU organic standards. Irish dairy farms that supply Kerrygold may use conventional veterinary medicines (including antibiotics when medically necessary), synthetic fertilizers on pastures, and herbicides for weed control. The Bord Bia Grass-Fed Standard governs feeding practices and pasture access, not organic production methods.

It is not 100% grass-fed. As discussed above, a portion of the cows’ diet (approximately 5–10%) consists of grain-based concentrate feed, particularly during winter and peak lactation. Products labeled “100% Grass-Fed” from brands like Maple Hill, Alexandre Family Farm, or Organic Valley’s Grassmilk line adhere to stricter standards that prohibit any grain feeding.

It does not guarantee the absence of GMO feed. Ireland does not grow genetically modified crops commercially, and the majority of Irish cattle feed is domestically produced grass and grass silage. However, imported concentrate feeds used as supplements may contain genetically modified soy or corn. Kerrygold does not carry a Non-GMO Project Verified seal or make a formal non-GMO claim on its U.S. packaging.

The Regulatory Gap: Why the U.S. Has No Dairy Grass-Fed Standard

The USDA’s voluntary grass-fed marketing claim standard, established in 2007 and applicable to ruminant animals (cattle, bison, goats, sheep), required that animals eat only grass and forage for their entire lives after weaning. However, the standard was withdrawn in January 2016 under the Obama administration as part of a broader effort to reduce the USDA’s involvement in marketing claims. The Agricultural Marketing Service determined that the standard was creating confusion because it applied only to USDA-inspected meat products, not to dairy, and because the growing number of third-party grass-fed certifications made a government standard less necessary.

The withdrawal left a void. Beef producers could still use third-party certifications (AGA, PCO, A Greener World’s Certified Grassfed), but dairy producers had no equivalent framework. The FDA, which regulates dairy labeling, has taken no action to define “grass-fed” for dairy products. This means that a butter or cheese labeled “grass-fed” in the United States has met no government-verified standard for what that term means.

In 2019, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued a notice stating that it would evaluate “grass-fed” claims on meat products on a case-by-case basis, requiring companies to submit documentation supporting their claims. But this process applies only to meat under FSIS jurisdiction, not to dairy under FDA jurisdiction. The result is that grass-fed dairy claims remain effectively unregulated in the United States.

How Ireland Compares to Other Countries

Ireland is not the only country with grass-based dairy production, but it has been more proactive than most in codifying and verifying its standards.

New Zealand has a dairy system similar to Ireland’s, with cows spending the majority of the year on pasture. However, New Zealand has experienced a trend toward supplementary feeding (particularly palm kernel extract, an imported feed supplement) as herd sizes have increased and farmers seek to maximize production per cow. The New Zealand government does not have a national grass-fed standard equivalent to Ireland’s Bord Bia system, though individual companies like Fonterra and Lewis Road Creamery make grass-fed claims based on their own internal standards.

The European Union does not have a unified grass-fed dairy standard. Individual member states and private organizations set their own criteria. France’s “Bleu-Blanc-Coeur” label certifies that participating farms meet specific nutritional quality criteria for animal feed, including a minimum proportion of grass and forage. The Netherlands and Denmark have high-welfare dairy standards that include pasture access requirements, but these focus on animal welfare rather than feeding practices.

The United States stands out for its near-total absence of grass-fed dairy regulation. The AGA’s certification program, which requires 100% grass and forage feeding with no grain supplementation and a minimum of 150 days of pasture access per year, is the most rigorous third-party standard available in the U.S. market. PCO Certified 100% Grassfed is another respected certification. Both are voluntary and cover a small fraction of the U.S. dairy market.

The Nutritional Case for Grass-Fed Butter

The nutritional differences between grass-fed and grain-fed butter are real, though their practical health significance is debated. The key differences, supported by peer-reviewed research, include:

Omega-3 fatty acids. Grass-fed butter contains significantly more alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the plant-based omega-3 fatty acid, than grain-fed butter. A 2019 meta-analysis in Advances in Nutrition found that milk from grass-fed cows had an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of approximately 2:1, compared to 5:1 or higher in milk from grain-fed cows. The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is considered an important marker of dietary quality, with lower ratios associated with reduced inflammation.

Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA is a group of fatty acids found primarily in ruminant fat. Animal studies have suggested potential anti-cancer and anti-obesity properties, though human clinical trials have produced mixed results. Grass-fed dairy consistently contains 2–5 times more CLA than grain-fed dairy, according to a 2010 review in Nutrition Research Reviews. A 2018 Food Chemistry study specifically analyzing Irish butter found CLA levels 2.5 times higher than in butter from grain-fed herds.

Fat-soluble vitamins. Grass-fed butter is richer in vitamin A (as retinol and beta-carotene), vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol), and vitamin K2 (menaquinone-7). Vitamin K2 has attracted particular attention for its role in calcium metabolism — directing calcium into bones rather than arteries. A 2017 study in The Journal of Nutrition found that higher K2 intake was associated with a 9% reduction in coronary heart disease risk per 10 mcg increase in daily consumption.

Butterfat content. European-style butters, including Kerrygold, are required to have a minimum butterfat content of 82%, compared to the U.S. minimum of 80%. This higher fat content contributes to Kerrygold’s richer flavor and improved baking performance (flakier pastry, better browning).

What About rBST and Growth Hormones?

Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), is a synthetic hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. It was approved by the FDA in 1993 and is used by an estimated 15–17% of U.S. dairy operations (USDA NAHMS, 2014). rBST is banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

Because Ireland is part of the EU, Kerrygold cows are never treated with rBST. Kerrygold states this on its packaging: “Not treated with rBST.” The FDA requires that any product making this claim also include the disclaimer: “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows” — a statement that reflects the FDA’s position that rBST does not alter the composition of milk in a way that is detectable or nutritionally significant.

Whether rBST-treated milk poses health risks to consumers is a matter of scientific debate. Critics point to elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in milk from rBST-treated cows, which some epidemiological studies have associated with increased cancer risk. The FDA, WHO, and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have concluded that IGF-1 levels in milk from rBST-treated cows fall within the normal range and do not pose a health risk to consumers, though EFSA noted animal welfare concerns (increased mastitis and lameness) as its primary reason for the EU ban.

The Cost Question: Is Grass-Fed Butter Worth the Premium?

Kerrygold typically retails for $4.50–$5.50 per 8 oz (227g) block in U.S. grocery stores in 2026, compared to $3.00–$4.00 for conventional store-brand butter and $6.00–$8.00 for certified organic or 100% grass-fed domestic brands like Maple Hill or Alexandre Family Farm.

The premium reflects several factors: the higher cost of pasture-based farming compared to CAFO-based grain feeding, the cost of maintaining the Bord Bia certification system, the transportation cost of importing butter from Ireland, and Kerrygold’s brand positioning as a premium product. Whether the nutritional differences between grass-fed and conventional butter are clinically meaningful enough to justify a 30–60% price premium is a question that current research cannot definitively answer. The differences in fatty acid profiles and fat-soluble vitamin content are consistent and reproducible, but no long-term randomized controlled trial has directly compared health outcomes between populations consuming grass-fed versus grain-fed butter.

For consumers whose purchasing decisions are driven primarily by animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and support for pasture-based farming systems, the premium is straightforward to justify. For consumers focused exclusively on measurable nutritional outcomes, the evidence supports a meaningful difference in fatty acid composition but not yet a proven difference in health outcomes.

Alternatives to Kerrygold

Consumers who want dairy products from cows with verified pasture access and grass-based diets have several options in the U.S. market, each with different standards:

100% Grass-Fed, Organic: Maple Hill (New York), Alexandre Family Farm (California), and Organic Valley Grassmilk (various states) offer butter from cows that eat only grass and forage, with no grain supplementation, and are also certified organic. These products command the highest price points but offer the most comprehensive guarantee of both feeding practices and organic production methods.

Certified Organic (not 100% grass-fed): Organic Valley (non-Grassmilk line), Horizon Organic, and Stonyfield Organic offer butter that meets USDA organic standards (no synthetic pesticides, no antibiotics, no rBST, access to pasture for 120+ days per year) but does not guarantee a predominantly grass-based diet. Organic dairy cows may receive significant amounts of organic grain feed.

Domestic Grass-Fed (not organic): Brands like Vital Farms and local creameries may offer grass-fed butter with varying standards. Without a government-backed definition, the rigor of these claims depends entirely on the individual producer’s practices and any third-party certification they carry.

The Broader Question: What Should “Grass-Fed” Mean?

The Kerrygold debate is ultimately a proxy for a larger question about food labeling in the United States: should high-value marketing terms like “grass-fed,” “natural,” “free-range,” and “humanely raised” have legally enforceable definitions that mean the same thing regardless of who uses them?

The current system relies on a patchwork of voluntary third-party certifications, company self-declarations, and consumer lawsuits to police label claims. This approach has several advantages — it allows for innovation, accommodates different farming systems, and avoids the regulatory burden of government certification. But it also creates a marketplace where identical terms can describe fundamentally different practices, and where consumers must research individual brands, certifications, and supply chains to understand what they are buying.

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, launched under the second Trump administration in 2025, has put food labeling reform back on the political agenda. In August 2026, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced proposed reforms to the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) system and a new federal definition of ultra-processed foods. Whether these reforms will extend to clearer standards for claims like “grass-fed,” “natural,” or “pasture-raised” remains to be seen. The FDA has stated that it will “evaluate the need for additional rulemaking” on food marketing claims as part of its broader food labeling modernization effort, but no specific timeline has been announced for dairy labeling.

In the meantime, consumers who want to understand what they are paying for when they buy grass-fed butter should look for specific, third-party-verified claims rather than relying on unregulated marketing terms. The presence of a certification seal — Bord Bia Grass-Fed (for Irish products), AGA Certified Grassfed, PCO Certified 100% Grassfed, or USDA Organic — provides a level of assurance that a self-declared “grass-fed” or “natural” label does not.

The Environmental Dimension: Pasture-Based vs. Confinement Dairy

The grass-fed versus grain-fed debate extends beyond nutrition and labeling into environmental impact, where the differences between farming systems are substantial and well-documented.

Carbon sequestration. Well-managed pastures can function as carbon sinks, pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in soil organic matter. A 2018 study published in Agricultural Systems found that rotationally grazed pastures in temperate climates sequestered enough carbon to offset 20–40% of the methane emissions from the grazing cattle. Confinement dairy operations, which rely on row-cropped feed (corn, soy, alfalfa), generate net carbon emissions from both the animals and the crop production that feeds them. However, the carbon sequestration potential of pasture depends heavily on management intensity, soil type, and climate — poorly managed or overgrazed pastures can be net carbon emitters.

Water quality. Pasture-based dairy systems generally produce less concentrated nutrient runoff than confinement operations, which generate large volumes of liquid manure that must be stored and applied to cropland. The EPA has identified concentrated animal feeding operations as significant point sources of water pollution, and large dairy CAFOs are subject to permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act. Pasture-based systems distribute manure more evenly across the landscape as cows graze, reducing the concentration of nutrients in any single area. However, dairy cattle grazing near streams and wetlands can cause bank erosion and direct nutrient loading, which is why best management practices call for fencing cattle away from waterways and establishing vegetated buffer strips.

Biodiversity. The 2024 study by Reiff et al. published in Communications Earth & Environment compared biodiversity indicators on nine permaculture and diversified farms with paired conventional fields in Central Europe. While this study focused on arable farming rather than dairy specifically, its findings are directionally relevant: diversified agricultural systems showed 457% higher plant species richness, 201% higher earthworm abundance, 197% higher bird species richness, and 27% higher soil carbon stocks compared to conventional fields. For dairy specifically, studies from Ireland and the UK have found that species-rich grasslands support significantly more insect pollinators and ground-nesting birds than intensively managed ryegrass monocultures, even when both are grazed.

Land use efficiency. Critics of grass-fed dairy point to its lower production per unit of land. A pasture-based dairy cow produces significantly less milk per year than a high-producing cow in a confinement system fed an optimized grain-based diet. In the United States, average milk production per cow exceeded 24,000 pounds per year in 2023, driven by genetics, nutrition, and management in CAFO systems. Irish dairy cows, managed for pasture-based production, average approximately 12,000–14,000 pounds per year. This means that producing the same volume of milk from grass-fed cows requires roughly twice the land area, a meaningful consideration in regions where agricultural land is scarce or expensive.

The counter-argument is that pasture-based dairy uses land that is often unsuitable for crop production. Ireland’s lush grasslands, for example, are too wet and hilly for efficient grain farming. Converting this land to pasture dairy is, in economic terms, using a natural resource for its highest-value purpose. The same argument applies to much of the dairy land in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and parts of the American Northeast and Pacific Northwest.

The American Butter Renaissance

Kerrygold’s success in the U.S. market is part of a broader shift in American attitudes toward butter and dietary fat. After decades of official dietary guidance that demonized saturated fat and encouraged consumers to replace butter with margarine and vegetable oil spreads, butter consumption in the United States has been rising steadily since the mid-2000s. Per capita butter consumption reached 6.4 pounds in 2023, the highest level since the 1960s, according to USDA Economic Research Service data.

Several factors have driven this reversal. The 2010 and 2014 meta-analyses published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Annals of Internal Medicine, respectively, found no significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease risk, challenging the scientific basis of the low-fat dietary recommendations that had prevailed since the 1980s. The 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans removed the longstanding cap on total dietary fat intake (previously set at 30% of calories) and the specific cap on dietary cholesterol (previously 300 mg per day), effectively rehabilitating butter’s reputation as a cooking fat.

At the same time, the trans-fat scare undermined consumer confidence in margarine. The FDA’s 2015 determination that partially hydrogenated oils (the primary source of artificial trans fats, and the main ingredient in most margarines) were no longer Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) sent a clear signal: the product that had been marketed as a healthier alternative to butter for 40 years was itself a health risk. The resulting consumer backlash drove a dramatic shift back toward butter, and premium butters like Kerrygold were well-positioned to capture the demand.

Kerrygold’s U.S. sales have grown from approximately $30 million in 2008 to over $400 million in 2024, making it the number-one branded butter in the United States by revenue. Its parent company, Ornua, reported global revenue of €2.9 billion in 2023. The brand’s growth has been driven almost entirely by word-of-mouth and in-store positioning rather than large-scale advertising — a strategy that has maintained its premium positioning while keeping marketing costs low.

Making an Informed Choice

For consumers who want to make an informed decision about which butter to buy, the key questions to ask are:

1. Is the grass-fed claim verified? Look for a specific certification seal (Bord Bia, AGA, PCO) rather than a self-declared marketing claim. If no certification is visible, the “grass-fed” claim is unverified and may mean very little.

2. Is organic certification important to you? If avoiding synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, and GMO feed is a priority, look for the USDA Organic seal. Grass-fed and organic are not the same thing — a product can be one without the other.

3. What are your priorities? If animal welfare and environmental impact are primary concerns, pasture-based systems (Irish, New Zealand, or certified domestic grass-fed) offer meaningful advantages over confinement dairy. If nutritional composition is the focus, any grass-fed butter (including Kerrygold) will have a meaningfully different fatty acid profile from conventional butter. If organic production standards are non-negotiable, certified organic butter from brands like Maple Hill or Organic Valley is the most appropriate choice.

4. Does price matter? Kerrygold occupies a middle ground in the premium butter market — more expensive than conventional but significantly less expensive than certified organic 100% grass-fed options. For consumers who want to upgrade from conventional butter without paying the highest premium, it represents a reasonable compromise between farming practices, nutritional quality, and cost.

The broader lesson from the Kerrygold story is that label claims in the U.S. food system mean less than most consumers assume. Until the FDA establishes enforceable definitions for high-value marketing terms on dairy products — a reform that consumer advocacy organizations, dairy farmers, and some industry groups have been requesting for years — the burden of understanding what a label actually means falls on the consumer.

References

1. Bord Bia. Grass-Fed Dairy Standard. bordbia.ie
2. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Withdrawal of the Grass (Forage) Fed Marketing Claim Standard. January 2016. ams.usda.gov
3. O’Callaghan TF, et al. Effect of pasture versus indoor feeding systems on quality characteristics, nutritional composition, and sensory and volatile properties of full-fat Cheddar cheese. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;100(8):6053–6073.
4. O’Callaghan TF, et al. Pasture feeding changes the bovine rumen and milk metabolome. Metabolites. 2018;8(2):27.
5. Benbrook CM, et al. Enhancing the fatty acid profile of milk through forage-based rations, with nutrition modeling of diet outcomes. Food Science & Nutrition. 2018;6(3):681–700.
6. Daley CA, et al. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal. 2010;9:10.
7. Knaus W. Perspectives on pasture versus indoor feeding of dairy cows. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2016;96(1):18–22.
8. American Grassfed Association. Grassfed Ruminant Standards. americangrassfed.org
9. FDA. Use of the Term “Natural” in the Labeling of Human Food Products. Federal Register. 2015.
10. USDA NAHMS. Dairy 2014: Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations. aphis.usda.gov
11. HHS. Secretary Kennedy Announces Landmark Food Policy Reforms to Advance President Trump’s MAHA Agenda. August 10, 2026. hhs.gov

Last updated: September 26, 2026