The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance, the framework governing federal grants. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) warns these rules could disrupt food and nutrition research, weakening the nation’s scientific foundation and global standing. IFT’s chief science and technology officer, Brendan Niemira, Ph.D., says the proposed rules, announced May 29, reframe federal grant oversight as an update to transparency and accountability. But the changes, he argues, risk shifting priorities from scientific merit to political influence.
“Evidence in food science depends on peer-reviewed publication, collaboration, and long-term investment,” Niemira explains. If these systems are undermined, the science behind dietary guidance, food safety, and innovation becomes less predictable and less useful to the public. The rules could allow political preferences to dictate funding decisions, narrowing research questions and eroding trust in federal science. “Science works best when experts evaluate evidence with rigor and peer review, not when research priorities change with the political winds,” Niemira says.
Barriers to publishing and collaboration
The proposed OMB rules may also restrict publishing-related expenses, such as journal subscriptions and conference participation. Niemira emphasizes that sharing research through publications and conferences is how science becomes public knowledge. “If researchers face new barriers to publishing, federally funded science risks becoming siloed instead of useful,” he says. This isolation could slow the evidence base supporting food safety, nutrition guidance, and innovation. For example, studies on emerging food technologies might take longer to reach regulators or industry partners, delaying practical applications.
Related: Genetic testing transforms pulmonary fibrosis treatment
Such restrictions could also weaken the US’s global competitiveness. As other nations expand R&D investment and publishing capacity, US scientists may face greater challenges accessing research funds or collaborating internationally. Niemira warns that this could drive future scientists to institutions abroad where research support is more accessible. “We see this as a major concern for the future of food and nutrition science,” he says. These fields are critical for public health and national security, yet reduced investment and collaboration could slow progress in addressing global food challenges.
A call for balance
IFT urges the OMB to finalize rules that protect scientific independence while ensuring accountability. Niemira argues that merit-based peer review and open pathways for publishing and conference participation are essential. “The goal should be clear: protect taxpayer dollars while ensuring federally funded research can still become trusted, useful public knowledge,” he concludes. The stakes extend beyond academic institutions—public health outcomes and the US’s role as a scientific leader hang in the balance. As the debate over these rules unfolds, the food science community faces a critical test of whether policy can align with the long-term needs of research and innovation.
