One of the impending showdowns of 2026 is how the food & beverage industry and the government – really, governments – will deal with the growing number of state laws banning, labeling or otherwise controlling certain foods and ingredients.
Last year in this story, we talked about two then-recently passed laws in California and efforts underway in Illinois, Indiana, New York and Pennsylvania – five states, that’s all. In the months since, six states exacted bans and the number of state legislatures considering them grew to 19. Two on-the-books laws – in Texas and West Virginia -- are so sweeping and so imminent they have drawn lawsuits challenging them.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health & Human Services, last year did what he could to control questionable additives without going the lengthy and cumbersome regulatory route. Last April, he made a strong and public demand – without specified repercussions – that processors remove six petroleum-based color additive (Blue 1&2, Green 1, Red 40 and Yellow 5&6) by the end of 2026 Red 3 was banned by the previous administration, with an effective date of Jan. 15, 2027. So was brominated vegetable oil, outlawed effective last August.
Despite some initial pushback from the industry, one processor after another pledged to abide by the Jan. 1, 2027 deadline. Interesting, however, was the Mars response: The company would offer alternative versions of M&M’s, Skittles, Extra Gum Spearmint and Starburst made without FD&C colors at an unspecified date this year and apparently online only.
All that more or less satisfied the feds. But not the states.
Seven states have enacted or passed bans on the colorants and other ingredients, and 19 more have bills pending in their legislatures. While there are many similarities – all want to ban the petroleum-based FD&C color additives, and most also target butylated hydroxyanisole, potassium bromate and propylparaben – there are enough differences that a food maker might have to create several different versions of a product, maybe even 50 versions, if the company wants to sell in all 50 states.
California started this
The California Food Safety Act (AB 418) started this all, passing back in October of 2023 with an enforcement date of Jan. 1, 2027. Food safety consultancy The Acheson Group at the time titled a newsletter about it “How a Single State Regulation Can Impact the Entire Nation.”
The law says, “No person or entity can manufacture, sell, deliver, distribute, hold, or offer for sale, in commerce a food product for human consumption that contains brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, or red dye 3.” It provides fines up to $5,000 for a first violation and up to $10,000 each for subsequent violations.
The initial version, proposed in the state senate, also included a ban on titanium dioxide (TiO2), however that was removed in the subsequent assembly bill.
A year later, the California School Food Safety Act was signed into law, prohibiting California public schools from grades 1 to 12 from serving food containing blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6.
“All of these chemicals are prohibited from being added to food sold in the European Union because of the dangers they pose, but are still allowed in the U.S.,” Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who introduced both bills, said in a fact sheet.
Everything’s bigger in Texas
Texas SB 25, signed into law on June 22 of last year, is a wide-ranging law to improve health in that state. It requires more nutrition education and more school physical activity, among its mandates, and requires warning labels on an exhaustive list of 44 food ingredients, from A (acetylated esters of mono- and diglycerides) to Y (yellow dyes 5&6). It goes into effect Jan. 1, 2027.
In December, four food industry associations filed suit challenging only the warning labels provision because, in essence, it forces them to lie. The required wording says “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.” But the plaintiffs claim at least three of the specified ingredients -- lye, acetylated esters of monoglycerides and acetylated esters of diglycerides – are permitted for use in some of those countries.
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.
West Virginia
West Virginia’s HB 2354 overwhelmingly passed both houses in the state legislature last March. It would prohibit the sale of any food product in the state that contains Red 3 or 40, Yellow 5 or 6, Blue 1 or 2 or Green No. 3 -- the same color additives banned in California schools --along with butylated hydroxyanisole and propylparaben – the latter banned in the statewide California ban.
The law banned the listed colors in school nutrition programs effective last Aug. 1. Then, on Jan. 1, 2028, the ban will extend to all foods sold statewide. The International Assn. of Color Manufacturers has filed a lawsuit saying the legislation violates the constitutions of both the state and the country.
Louisiana
Senate Bill 14, passed unanimously by both state houses and signed into law on June 20, 2025, is even bigger than the Texas law, controlling 50 ingredients, some prohibited in schools, some banned throughout the state and some requiring QR codes with information on the suspect ingredients.
The new law of course includes the seven petroleum-derived colors that are mentioned in all passed or pending state and federal legislation, plus the other usual suspects (azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxyanisole, etc.) but also some surprise additions -- such as sweeteners acesulfame potassium, aspartame and sucralose plus bleached flour and seed oils.
By banning certain ingredients, it essentially removes ultraprocessed foods from state-funded schools; mandates warning labels for artificial colors, additives and banned chemicals; requires restaurants to disclose the use of seed oils in food preparation; prohibits the purchase of sugary soft drinks with SNAP benefits; and requires continuing education for health professionals on nutrition and metabolic health.
Arkansas, Utah, Virginia
Arkansas’ ambitions are much smaller. Act 622 only bans potassium bromate and propylparaben effective Jan. 1, 2028.
Utah’s HB 402 will prohibit the widely banned colorants as well as potassium bromate and propylparaben from school foods beginning with the 2026-27 school year.
Virginia last year enacted a bill that would ban the seven color additives from state schools effective July 1, 2027.
Environmental Working Group says there are similar bills, or ones focusing on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in packaging, being debated in Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.
“The rights of states to enforce legislation that is not in sync with federal legislation is becoming increasingly controversial, particularly in relation to food dyes and additives,” The Acheson Group recently wrote. “From the MAHA focus to a new Senate bill, an alliance of major food manufacturers, and lawsuits against states implementing ingredient regulations, groups are taking sides – and action.”
While the food & beverage industry initially fought all forms of regulation of approved ingredients, it’s taken a more moderate stance since, capitulating to federal control that pre-empts different state laws.
To that end, Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT) launched last Oct. 22. “These well-intentioned [state] efforts are creating an ever-expanding patchwork of disjointed food, beverage, and personal care regulations that are increasing confusion, rather than providing Americans with the clarity they deserve,” AFIT said in its inaugural announcement.
Food company backers are Coca-Cola Co., Conagra, General Mills, Hormel, Ken’s, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kraft Heinz, McCormick, Nestle, Ocean Spray, PepsiCo, Sargento and Tyson. The effort also is backed by a number of associations, including Consumer Brands Assn., American Beverage Assn., Meat Institute, National Restaurant Assn., National Milk Producers Assn., FMI-The Food Industry Assn., and others.
AFIT “stands ready to work with the Trump Administration and Congress on incorporating Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) reform, Front-of-Package labeling reform and QR code reform into federal law,” the group said.
About the Author
Dave Fusaro
Editor in Chief
Dave Fusaro has served as editor in chief of Food Processing magazine since 2003. Dave has 30 years experience in food & beverage industry journalism and has won several national ASBPE writing awards for his Food Processing stories. Dave has been interviewed on CNN, quoted in national newspapers and he authored a 200-page market research report on the milk industry. Formerly an award-winning newspaper reporter who specialized in business writing, he holds a BA in journalism from Marquette University. Prior to joining Food Processing, Dave was Editor-In-Chief of Dairy Foods and was Managing Editor of Prepared Foods.