Ninth Circuit revives food labeling case on FODMAPs rights

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Michelle Przybocki, Ketan Vakil, and Gourmend Foods, LLC, in their challenge against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The court's decision, filed on August 3, 2026, addresses important First Amendment rights regarding food labeling for sugars known as FODMAPs. This ruling affects millions of consumers who struggle with digestive issues related to these sugars and food producers who wish to provide clearer labeling.

The case, Przybocki v. United States Department of Agriculture (Docket No. 24-7174), centers on the plaintiffs' claims that federal regulations prevent food companies from including FODMAP information on product labels. FODMAPs, which stand for fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols, are sugars that can cause digestive discomfort for many individuals. The court's ruling is significant as it addresses the balance between regulatory authority and consumer rights.

Michelle Przybocki, a speech therapist from Las Vegas, Nevada, suffers from irritable bowel syndrome and requires a low-FODMAP diet to manage her symptoms. She wants food labels to display FODMAP levels so she can make informed choices. Ketan Vakil, who runs Gourmend Foods, LLC, aims to sell food products that include FODMAP information on their labels. However, the USDA rejected his proposed beef broth label because it included FODMAP content claims, leading to the lawsuit. The district court initially dismissed the case, stating the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling reversed the district court's dismissal regarding Przybocki's claims against the FDA and her standing as a consumer. The court found that Przybocki adequately pleaded standing based on her need for information about FODMAP levels in food. The court stated, "Przybocki adequately pleaded standing to sue as a listener based on her needs as a consumer of low-FODMAP foods." Additionally, Vakil and Gourmend were found to have standing to challenge the FDA's regulations as speakers, given the government's threat of enforcement against their labeling practices.

The ruling acknowledged the significant number of people who suffer from digestive issues related to FODMAPs, suggesting that many consumers would benefit from clearer labeling. The court noted that the USDA and FDA's regulations hinder food producers from providing essential information that could help consumers like Przybocki make informed dietary choices.

The court also emphasized that the plaintiffs had a concrete connection to the issue at hand. The opinion stated, "Przybocki has alleged facts from which we can infer the existence of speakers, including Gourmend and other food companies, who would include FODMAP-related information on their labels in the absence of the challenged regulations." This ruling reinforces the importance of consumer rights and the need for transparency in food labeling.

The impact of this ruling is substantial. It opens the door for food producers to challenge existing regulations and potentially include FODMAP information on their labels, which could lead to more informed choices for consumers with dietary restrictions. This case may also encourage other food companies to advocate for clearer labeling practices, thus benefiting a broader consumer base.

The court's decision does not mean that the plaintiffs have won their case outright. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Vakil and Gourmend's claims against the USDA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This means that while the court recognizes the plaintiffs' standing to challenge the FDA's regulations, they must still navigate the necessary administrative processes regarding the USDA.

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Przybocki v. USDA marks a significant step forward for consumer rights in the realm of food labeling. It highlights the need for regulatory agencies to consider the implications of their rules on consumers' access to information. As this case progresses, it will be essential to monitor how it influences food labeling practices and the ongoing dialogue about consumer rights and health.

Looking ahead, the plaintiffs may pursue further legal action against the USDA and FDA, potentially seeking to amend their claims or challenge specific regulatory practices. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how food labeling regulations are enforced and interpreted in the future, particularly concerning consumer access to vital dietary information.