A new analysis by Harvard Law School finds that the FRESH Act's preemption provisions are broad enough to block state laws requiring folic acid fortification in foods like corn masa flour. ^[1] The FRESH Act is a proposed federal bill in Congress that would make the Food and Drug Administration the sole regulator of food additives and strip states of authority to pass their own food chemical laws. ^[2] Margaret Lynn and Emily Broad Leib of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic released a report on August 25, 2026, concluding that the preemption clause in the draft FRESH Act would displace state additive bans, allergen disclosures, and heavy metal limits in most areas without a corresponding federal rule. ^[3] The Harvard report warns that preempting 'any and all State requirements' could eliminate private tort claims for foodborne illness, leaving injured families with a federal statute that contains no remedy. ^[4] Federal folic acid fortification in enriched grain products has been required in the U.S. since 1998 and is estimated to have reduced the rate of neural tube defects by between 25% and 50%. ^[5] Many Latino communities benefit less from federal fortification because they consume more tortillas and tamales, leading states like Alabama and California to extend mandates to corn masa flour. ^[6] Legal interpretations of the phrase 'added or naturally occurring substance in food' under United States v. Anderson Seafoods and Continental Seafoods v. Schweiker indicate the clause reaches pathogens, meaning state limits on Listeria and other microbiological contamination would be preempted. ^[7] The draft FRESH Act preempts state requirements relating to the use, labeling, sale, or marketing of food regardless of whether a federal rule exists to replace them, effectively removing state authority in areas like PFAS rules for packaging and cottage food laws. ^[8]