IFT: Proposed US federal grant rules threaten nutrition science funding & competitiveness

The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently proposed rules to rewrite the Uniform Guidance — the rulebook for all federal grants. Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) chief science and technology officer tells Nutrition Insight that these rules are set to undermine the nation’s scientific research for food and nutrition and hinder global competitiveness. 

IFT’s Brendan Niemira, Ph.D., explains that the proposed OMB rule, introduced on May 29 this year, is framed as an oversight update, such as improving transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal grantmaking. However, the rules would “fundamentally” transform how federally funded science research is reviewed, managed, and shared.

“For food science and nutrition research, this matters because evidence depends on peer-reviewed publication, collaboration, and long-term investment. If those systems are weakened and governed by political priorities, the science behind dietary guidance, food safety, and innovation becomes less predictable, less objective, and less useful to the public.”

Political currents shape publications

IFT flags that the rule could make political priorities, instead of scientific merit, the deciding factor for funding. 

Niemira expresses concern that funding decisions prompted by political alignment could be procedural while bringing real consequences. “It can narrow down the questions researchers are asking, reduce confidence and consistency in federal awards, and weaken public trust in the independence of federally funded science.”

“Science works best when experts evaluate evidence with rigor and peer review, not when research priorities change with the political winds.”

Furthermore, publishing-related expenses might be unallowable or more difficult under this rule, IFT points out.

The proposed OMB rule was introduced on May 29, 2026, framed as an update to transparency and oversight of federal grantmaking.“Publishing, presenting, and sharing data are how science becomes public knowledge,” states Niemira. “If researchers face new barriers to publishing, open access, journal subscriptions, conferences, or peer review, federally funded science risks becoming siloed instead of useful.”

“That would slow the evidence base that supports food science, nutrition guidance, food safety decisions, and food innovation.”

Boost weakening competitiveness

Niemira points out that if food scientists are restricted from publishing, presenting, and sharing their research, it would risk isolating science. This would not help global competitiveness as other nations expand R&D investment, domestic publishing capacity, and high-quality research output.

“Scientific leadership depends on consistency, transparency, communication, connection, and collaboration. If US rules make it harder for scientists to access research funds, publish, convene, or collaborate while other countries are expanding research and publishing capacity, we risk minimizing the US institutions that made US science a global leader,” he says.

“This will also result in future scientists shifting to global institutions outside of the US, where research funding and support are more readily available. We see this as a major concern for the future of food and nutrition science, as these are strategic areas for public health and national security, limiting investment and slowing the ability to share and apply research, which weakens public health and US competitiveness.”

To protect food science and nutrition research, Niemira calls on the OMB to strengthen accountability without weakening science.

“The final rule should preserve merit-based peer review, protect scientific independence, keep reasonable pathways for publishing and conference participation, and avoid broad restrictions that isolate US researchers from collaboration.”

“The goal should be clear: protect taxpayer dollars while ensuring federally funded research can still become trusted, useful public knowledge,” he concludes.