Banning Carbs Through “GRAS” Rules Is Not the Best Path to Metabolic Health

By David Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., and Ty Beal, Ph.D.

Millions of Americans struggle with chronic disease: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other conditions tied to poor metabolic health. Research shows that refined carbohydrates—found in processed grains and sugars—are a major driver of the chronic disease epidemic. Foods high in refined carbohydrates, from white bread to sugary drinks and breakfast cereals, are overconsumed in the standard American diet. 

Some advocates have proposed revoking refined carbohydrates’ GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) designation—an FDA designation indicating that a food substance is considered safe for its intended use, such as a flavor or preservative—to force change. 

When a substance lacks a GRAS designation, it is considered an “unapproved food additive,” and is illegal to sell commercially. Two such examples are sassafras oil, which contains a potential carcinogen, and tara flour, an additive known to cause liver injuries and organ damage. 

While we believe that this effort to reduce Americans’ intake of refined carbohydrates is well-intentioned and that the GRAS designation is a useful safety tool, revoking it in this context would introduce significant downsides and yield substantial political and legal pushback.

A Broken System, But the Wrong Tool

The dangers of excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates are well established: it’s strongly associated with insulin resistance, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, weight gain, and other poor health outcomes. However, revoking the GRAS status of refined carbohydrates is the wrong instrument to address these challenges. 

If we revoked GRAS status for refined carbs, we would effectively ban sugar, flour, and the majority of packaged foods—from pasta and white rice to pretzels and granola bars. Nearly every supermarket aisle would be affected. Such a sweeping action would destabilize the nation’s food supply—causing supply-chain disruptions and inviting political resistance and legal challenges—leading to food access issues and increased food costs.
Even more limited attempts to restrict food products have yielded significant backlash. For example, in 2012, New York City attempted to limit the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants and movie theaters. The proposal sparked intense public and legal backlash, was ultimately struck down in court, and never took effect.

The Risk of Overreach

It won’t be easy to reduce Americans’ refined carbohydrate intake. Processed, packaged, and premade foods high in refined carbohydrates, like cup noodles and instant mashed potatoes, are among the most convenient and affordable foods on the market. 

And high-carbohydrate foods often feel intertwined with American culture and our way of life. For many families, Friday pizza nights, football watch parties with chips, and popcorn-heavy days at the movies are common events.

You can’t make that go away with a line in the Federal Register. Instead, we must pair sensible regulations with education so that people can enjoy food, community, and celebration without harm to their health.

Better, healthier diets can become mainstream with updated federal nutrition guidelines, improved nutrition education for doctors, as well as a broader public awareness of the risks of refined carbohydrates and the importance of whole, nutrient-dense foods.

A Smarter Path Forward

The GRAS process is essential for ensuring food safety, but applying it to refined carbohydrates can confuse chronic dietary risk with acute chemical toxicity. We can acknowledge that refined carbs harm metabolic health while recognizing that banning them outright would be unfeasible and even counterproductive.
People deserve the knowledge and resources to make better choices. The right regulatory tools can make those choices easier to make. For instance, taxes on highly-processed foods high in carbs and added sugar, combined with farm-bill reforms and agricultural subsidies, can shift food production toward nutrient-dense, whole foods.

Additionally, we can make progress by:

• Creating more precise, evidence-based definitions for ultra-processed foods to better target the components driving poor metabolic health.
• Increasing access to accurate, science-based nutritional information for policymakers, healthcare providers, and the public.
• Reforming nutrition education in medical schools and continuing education.
• Updating the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods.
• Reforming school meals and hospital menus to align with updated dietary guidelines.
• Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages and using the proceeds to invest in nutrient-dense, whole foods.
• Restricting sugar-sweetened beverages in SNAP benefits and subsidizing healthful foods.
• Expanding insurance coverage of nutrition counseling and medical nutrition therapy.

To reduce refined carbohydrate consumption and improve the nation’s metabolic health, we should emphasize education, realign incentives using both carrots and sticks, update dietary guidance and federal regulations, ensure that government-funded meal programs purchase healthier foods, and support unbiased nutrition research.

Dr. David Ludwig is professor of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, endocrinologist and researcher at Boston Children’s Hospital, professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, and a member of the Coalition for Metabolic Health’s advisory committee. Dr. Ty Beal is head of food systems data and analytics at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition and a member of the Coalition for Metabolic Health.