The FDA Finally Liberates French Dressing from 72-Year-Old Ingredient Mandates
Why? A better question was why they were ever involved in the first place.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to relax some of its strict rules and allow manufacturer innovation to run wild—if only in the world of French dressing.
On Thursday the FDA will publish a final rule change in the Federal Register that will revoke the 72-year-old "standard of identity" that mandates what ingredients need to be in French dressing in order for it to be legally marketed with that name.
The change was requested by the Association for Dressings and Sauces, a nearly 100-year-old trade group representing this creamy and/or zesty sector of the food industry. After a comment and evaluation period, the FDA determined "that the standard of identity for French dressing no longer promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and revoking the standard could provide greater flexibility in the product's manufacture, consistent with comparable, nonstandardized foods available in the marketplace."
Translation: nobody is being tricked by "fraudulent" bottles of French dressing and really the only thing the standards do is restrict innovation and creativity with what might be done with the flavor or contents.
French dressing, historically, contains tomatoes, oil, vinegar, and some other seasonings. At the time that the FDA established a mandated identity for French dressing in 1950, the new announcement notes, the government focused on just three types of salad dressings and mandated their identities in order to legally bear these labels. That's it. Now we live in the fancy world of 2022, where grocery shelves are full (well, theoretically full) of wild combinations of salad dressings your grandparents never even dreamed of. And these new dressings are not subject similar standards of identity.
The Association for Dressings and Sauces noted in its petition that all this delicious innovation and all those fancy choices happened precisely because those other dressings didn't have forced standards. The FDA agrees with this observation, seeing "a proliferation of nonstandardized pourable dressings for salads with respect to flavors (Italian, Ranch, cheese, fruit, peppercorn, varied vinegars, and other flavoring concepts) and composition (including a wide range of reduced fat, "light," and fat-free dressings)."
Again, consumers are not screaming in despair over the lack of government-mandated "identities" for all of these other dressings. There's no reason why French dressing should be singled out for stricter identity demands than other dressings.
This is all somewhat similar to a rule change from the FDA in 2020 to deregulate the content requirements for frozen cherry pies. When that rule change was announced, it might have appeared as though the FDA was giving frozen cherry pie makers permission to sell crappy products containing hardly any cherries to unsuspecting buyers. But the FDA noted that only frozen cherry pies were regulated with these restrictions, not other forms of frozen fruit pies, nor other fresh pies. And yet, consumers were not, in fact, being screwed over by substandard fruit contents of frozen apple or raspberry pies. Consumer power and influence (and more importantly, consumer choice and competition) has been enough to keep manufacturers honest.
There is a similar market response at work here with French dressing. The FDA notes in its final rule that French dressing manufacturers have standardized their products in a way that's even narrower than the FDA identity requirements in response to consumer demands. In other words, U.S. French dressing lovers want a tomato-based sauce with a sweet taste that is reddish-orange in color. French dressing manufacturers understand that this is what their consumers want and are giving it to them. Market forces, not the FDA, have standardized the contents of French dressing.
But the FDA's restrictions do keep these French dressing manufacturers from branching out in certain ways and innovating and testing new flavor profiles. This has caused the dressing to become "marginalized," according to the petition from the Association for Dressings and Sauces. They perhaps have a point. The deregulation seems funny precisely because French dressing has become such a cultural artifact that echoes a past era of food. I haven't had it since I was a child in the 1970s. Maybe manufacturers want to spice it up with some jalapeno or something, like they do with all the other salad dressings.
Even funnier than the idea of the FDA having ever regulated French dressing all this time is that nobody really cared to complain. The FDA reports getting "more than 20 comments" on the rule change. "Some comments appeared to have been submitted as part of a university course assignment," it notes. Most comments were supportive. A couple of commenters mistakenly believed that the FDA was going to ban the label of "French dressing" entirely and needed to be assured that was not the case.
Only one comment objected to dropping the rules over a belief that manufacturers might put more "fillers" in a product to make it cheaper. This is the frozen cherry pie argument again. Other pies were not constrained by FDA rules and yet weren't full of fillers to make them cheaper. The FDA also notes that the rule change wouldn't remove labeling requirements, so if French dressing were suddenly full of fillers (and one wonders what that would even look like for a dressing that's primarily tomatoes, sugar, vinegar, and vegetable oil) those fillers would have to be listed in the ingredients.
At long last the marketplace of ideas will come to the world of French dressing. Maybe it will be revitalized as a product. Maybe French dressing purists will reject changes. Whatever comes, the market is certainly a better place to determine what the dressing should contain than the offices of the FDA.
One final punchline about how long it takes for the FDA to do anything, no matter how inconsequential: The petition by the Association for Dressings and Sauces for deregulation was initially submitted to the agency in January 1998.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
72 years? FDA's reauthorization of thalidomide took less time,
Maybe the supporting documents contained too much word salad.
French dressing ingredients mandated by the FDA?
I'm a oui bit perturbed by that.
the fourteen kids remaining who eat salads and use Freedom Dressing will be happy
Get $192 off an hour from Google!… Yes, this is Authentic as I just got my first payout, and was really awesome because it was the biggest number of $24413 in a week. (Ham20) It seems Appears Unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself.
If you do not check it go this site…… Visit Here
And yet, consumers were not, in fact, being screwed over by substandard fruit contents of frozen apple or raspberry pies.
Disagree. Both strawberry and rhubarb pie lovers are, in fact, being consistently screwed over by strawberry-rhubarb pie.
That shit needs to be outlawed.
You see what you think is a slice of strawberry pie then you get close and it's got some damn roots in it.
If you're eating the rhubarb roots, that might be part of the problem. The edible part of the plant (or at least, the tasty part) is the stalks.
And strawberry pie without rhubarb is as cloying as a marshmallow sandwich.
Strawberry pie is great, but hard to get without the rhubarb that messes it up. I don't understand why it's so much rarer than the (also great) blueberry pie.
But what I really wonder about Shackford is what happened to him that he stopped using French (or, as the French call it, red) dressing. I even use the artificially colored type in my red cole slaw.
And strawberry pie without rhubarb is as cloying as a marshmallow sandwich.
I'm sorry people don't know how to bake strawberry pies where you live. It's dead simple to cultivate sickeningly sweet and cherry-tart strawberries on the same row of plants. If the pies are universally too sweet, I suspect somebody just dumps in a couple cups of sugar and calls it a day. Similar with rhubarb pie. Don't add rhubarb to cover up your high sucrose fuckup as routine practice, just stop fucking up every. single. time. Moreover, if you do fuck up the sweetness/tartness one way or the other that's what cream (ice or whipped) and coffee is for.
Per current fda standards the dressing only need to identify as French in order to be concidered French dressing
Abolish the FDA.
The French Dressing Association?
And put 15,000 chair warmers out of work?
I'll bet Big Mayo was behind this movement to label anything as anything you please. I will go to my grave insisting there's no such thing as egg-free mayonnaise. What's next? Non-dairy butter where you're allowed to sell hydrogenated vegetable oil under the label of You Better Believe It's Now Legally Butter!
Mayonnaise is one of the other two "dressings" covered in that section of the FDA regulations; the other is just called "Salad Dressing" and appears to be more or less identical to the specification for Mayo.
"French Dressing" is literally the only kind of salad dressing on a store shelf (of the ones sold in liquid form, anyway) that's covered specifically under a FDA rule, since the other two appear to be Mayo/Miracle Whip and the rest of that section covers various incarnations of vanilla flavoring. It's entirely possible that this rule lasted for 70 years largely because only a handful of lawyers and clerks in the govt and the food industry even knew it existed at all.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=169
But they approved the Pfizer vax in 108 days.
But getting the data for that authorization will take 75 years.
Smells like pussy, tastes like chicken!
I once worked with a guy who would always grab a box of fried chicken gizzards for lunch, and his claim was that they were the next best thing since pussy. He would say this as he was smacking his greasy lips.
To be fair, I responded by saying chicken livers were even better.
Lol lovers are nasty. Hearts are fucking awesome though.
You can only get gizzards around here at one place about 20 minutes away in the hoodiest of hoods, which is a shame cause I hate frying food in my house.
Was this under an emergency authorization at the behest of Big French Dressing?
No, I think it was because of the narrowing of the concept of Russian dressing so that now there's hardly any excuse to not label it as French.
Well played.
Freedom Dressing?
No one needs more than three types of salad dressing.
Thank you Bernie.
And definitely not spicy assault dressings.
When are they going to liberate sassafras and coumarin? There hasn't been real root beer since 1962 and Zubrowka vodka is still illegal.
Once illegal. I see it for sale at Total Wine.
The vodka, I mean.
I thought you could buy sassafras. Maybe not as root beer.
I've definitely seen Sassafras labeled as sassafras at a Rocket Fizz store. It's not widely distributed, but it existed within the last 20 years.
Didn't Shackford have his panties in a bunch over the frozen cherry pie change because it was Trump's FDA doing it?
French dressing doesn't come from France? I'm suing!
Bill Clinton prefers blue dress cheesing. I mean blue cheese dressing.
The Association for Dressings and Sauces. They are down the hall from the Ministry of Silly Walks.
FDA-Day. The Liberation of France and its Dressing. Operation Overregulate.
Does the FDA know that city chicken doesn't contain chicken? It needs to investigate.
Who buys these heavily government-regulated salad dressings? I make my own, at home, from scratch. I call them "ghost dressings" because the government doesn't know about them and can't control the contents or mandate a nutrition label.
Enjoy doing that while you still can. And enjoy using your kitchen knife to slice up the garlic and other veggies. If they take any hints from the UK, that knife may become
Illegal to all but licensed chefs for use only at the restaurant where they work.
I was 5 when the rule went into effect. I've always had a sentimental (?) attachment to French dressing (I'm NOT French), but growing disappointment with it these last ... 72 years, I guess. Over the assuredly few years remaining to me, I shall resume my effort to receive, and enjoy whatever "French dressing" might now become.
Vive la France!
That was some crisp and snappy Shackleford--especially the "theoretically" link. The only other time Americans liberated French dressings was 1944, removing the "Vichy" so the motto went back from the drealily conservative "Travail, Patrie, Famille" to the familiar Liberté... of the Marseillaise era. Is this the beginning of a Reason Gourmet column?
When my mother bought some "fat-free French dressing", my father reinterpreted that as "fat Free French dressing", and said it made him think of General DeGaulle changing clothes.