North American Millers’ Association (NAMA) has strongly objected to the ongoing GRAS debate, emphasizing that there is a robust scientific consensus supporting the safety of refined flour and that this consensus should not be disregarded.

The umbrella organization representing the North American milling sector, North American Millers’ Association (NAMA), has submitted its official comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in response to a citizen petition calling for the revocation of the “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) status of “processed refined carbohydrates,” including refined flour.

In its February 10, 2026 submission, NAMA argued that both the scope of the petition and its potential consequences pose significant risks to the food supply chain. The association stated that revoking the GRAS status of flour and other staple food ingredients could lead to the arbitrary and unnecessary removal of grain-based foods that have been consumed for generations. The statement underscored that the existing body of scientific literature demonstrates a strong consensus regarding the safety of refined flour and that this consensus should not be ignored.

According to NAMA’s assessment, refined grain products—particularly those that are enriched and fortified—serve as important sources of essential vitamins and minerals. They play a key role in meeting critical micronutrient needs for certain population groups, especially pregnant women and children. The association also noted that grain-based foods targeted by the petition under the “ultra-processed” label contribute to the intake of under-consumed nutrients, including dietary fiber.

NAMA further criticized the methodological approach of the petition. According to the association, the petition focuses on commercial food processing while excluding identical ingredients—such as sugar, flour, and starch—used in home kitchens. From a chemical standpoint, there is no difference between these ingredients when used in commercial production versus home preparation. This, NAMA argues, creates inconsistency from a regulatory perspective.

The petition also references the FDA’s previous decision to revoke the GRAS status of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), implying that a similar process could apply to flour. NAMA describes this comparison as misleading, asserting that the scientific consensus surrounding PHOs is fundamentally different from the evidence supporting the safety of refined flour.

Industry representatives caution that adopting the approach proposed in the petition could undermine the current systematic framework for evaluating the safety of food ingredients and additives, potentially creating significant uncertainty within the food supply chain. Such a development would affect not only the milling industry but also a broad production ecosystem ranging from baked goods to packaged foods.

While reiterating its support for strong, science-based regulation of food products and nutrition policy, NAMA stressed that regulatory decisions must be grounded in risk assessment and established scientific evidence. The debate over GRAS status is expected to have far-reaching implications for the global grain processing and bakery sectors and may prove decisive for the regulatory landscape in the coming period.