WE SAY THE UGLY PART.Wednesday, October 21, 2026JUST THE FUCKING FACTS
EST. 2026
THE UNFILTERED EDITION
The news.
Minus the bullshit.
← Business
CommentaryTHE SALT COPS SURRENDER

FDA Quietly Authorizes Mystery Salt in Your Food and Calls It Honesty

A final rule published October 13 lets manufacturers replace some or all added salt in standardized foods with safe and suitable salt substitutes, and the rule does not name a single one. It takes effect December 14, with dairy objections due November 12. The FDA says this promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.

Taiwan Food and Drug Administration building
Solomon203 / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

The facts

The Food and Drug Administration published a final rule, Use of Salt Substitutes To Reduce the Sodium Content in Standardized Foods, in the Federal Register on Tuesday, October 13, 2026 (Vol. 91, No. 196, pages 65040-65070, FR Doc No. 2026-20848). The action amends 21 CFR Parts 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 139, 145, 150, 155, 156, 158, 161, 163, 166, 168, and 169.

The rule amends FDA definitions and standards of identity that specify salt (sodium chloride) as a required or optional ingredient. Foods for which the FDA has established standards of identity are called standardized foods. The amendments permit the use of safe and suitable salt substitutes to replace some or all of the added salt used in the manufacture of standardized foods. Salt substitutes may already be used in the manufacture of non-standardized foods.

The final rule does not list specific salt substitutes. Instead, it generally allows ingredients or combinations of ingredients to be used as salt substitutes in standardized foods by manufacturers, now and in the future.

The rule is effective December 14, 2026. Objections or requests for a hearing on the amendments to the dairy standards (parts 131 and 133) are due by November 12, 2026.

The stated point is sodium reduction: reducing sodium may help reduce the risk of hypertension, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans say the general population, ages 14 and above, should consume less than 2,300 milligrams per day of sodium. The rule, the FDA says, provides flexibility to facilitate industry innovation in the production of standardized foods lower in sodium while maintaining the basic nature and essential characteristics of the foods, promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, and accommodates their preferences for lower-sodium varieties of foods.

Our take

The FDA has decided that honesty means never having to say what is in your food. This is a final rule that lets food manufacturers replace the salt in standardized foods with unnamed substitutes, and the agency calls the whole arrangement honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. You cannot make this shit up: the same agency that writes federal definitions of exactly what your food is allowed to be has now decided that whatever "safe and suitable" powder a manufacturer dumps in the vat needs no name at all.

Note the one group that scared the agency enough to get special treatment: dairy. The mystery-salt era starts December 14, but objections on the dairy standards get their own dedicated deadline, November 12. Somewhere a cheese lobbyist is reading this rule with a red pen and a lawyer on retainer, while the rest of us get to discover what "basic nature and essential characteristics" means once the salt is gone and something merely "suitable" took its place. Bon appetit, lab rats.

Sources

01Federal Register: Use of Salt Substitutes To Reduce the Sodium Content in Standardized Foods; Final Rule02Wikimedia Commons: ROC-MOHW Food and Drug Administration 20160723.jpg
NEXT UP WorldMacron's Fuel-Begging Tour Upgraded to International Whine-Tasting

WHILE YOU’RE HERE.

Business/CHEAPEST SHIT THAT DOESN'T KILL YOU, ON PAPER

The VA Wrote Down That Late Surgery Packs Could Cancel Veterans' Surgeries, Then Said Getting Them Faster Had "no value"

The Court of Federal Claims just ordered the VA to redo its $98.5 million sterile-procedure-pack solicitation. The agency shopped by lowest price technically acceptable, wrote into its own acquisition plan that late packs could delay or cancel surgeries, and then told the court a faster delivery plan was worth "no value" to it. Senior Judge Loren A. Smith was not buying it.