Four Food Associations File Lawsuit Against Texas Labeling Law

A novel lawsuit was filed last Friday (Dec. 5) by four food industry groups challenging one part of a new Texas law that requires warnings labels on food and beverage products that include any of 44 controversial ingredients.

Their basic argument: Telling the public that certain ingredients are banned in other countries would be forcing them to lie.

The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, argues that the labeling component in SB 25 is unconstitutional because it requires businesses operating in Texas to make false and misleading claims about their products – in violation of the companies’ constitutional rights.

At issue is the required wording “WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada the European Union or the United Kingdom.” The plaintiffs claim the warning is required even if the ingredient is permitted for use in some of those countries.

SB 25 was passed and signed into law on June 22. It requires the warning label for 44 dyes and synthetic ingredients, including Red Dye No. 40, diacetyl and bleached flour. Its effective date is Jan. 1, 2027.

The plaintiffs – American Beverage Association, Consumer Brands Association, National Confectioners Association, and FMI, the Food Industry Association – provided examples of at least three ingredients covered by the law that their spokesperson says are not banned in those four geographies: lye, acetylated esters of monoglycerides and acetylated esters of diglycerides.

“The plaintiffs highlight how this provision violates the First Amendment rights of businesses operating in Texas by compelling them to display information they know to be false,” said a spokesperson for the associations. “This unconstitutional provision would undermine efforts to provide greater transparency for consumers by confusing them with inaccurate information.”

In a statement, the plaintiffs point out that while they support other provisions in SB 25 – including nutrition education and more school physical activity – and want the overall bill to stand, there is a critical need to resolve the First Amendment issue in the labeling provision of the law, which also inappropriately cedes power to foreign regulatory bodies. As in: Why is Texas relying on regulations in foreign countries?