Key takeaways:
- Texas’ new ingredient warning law has triggered a major lawsuit from leading food and beverage trade groups.
- Industry plaintiffs argue the required labels are misleading, unconstitutional and conflict with federal standards.
- The outcome could shape how states regulate additives and how manufacturers reformulate or label products nationwide.
Texas’ push to reshape the nation’s food labels has officially landed in federal court. Four of the sector’s most influential trade groups – including the American Beverage Association, the Consumer Brands Association, the National Confectioners Association and FMI (the Food Industry Association, which represents grocery retailers and their supply chains) – have filed suit to stop the state from enforcing its new warning-label rules for 44 commonly used ingredients. According to the complaint, their argument is simple but explosive: the labels aren’t just heavy-handed, they’re wrong.
The contested provision, tucked inside Senate Bill 25 and due to take effect in January 2027, would require a stark warning for products containing ingredients Texas claims are ‘not recommended for human consumption’ in Australia, Canada, the EU or the UK. The lawsuit says those jurisdictions have never taken such a position, even for ingredients that have long been lightning rods in the US debate over artificial dyes and additives. As the plaintiffs put it in their filing, these ingredients “have been used safely in American foods and beverages for decades” and forcing companies to say otherwise crosses a constitutional line.
That line, they argue, is the First Amendment. If Texas wants to make a point about nutrition, the groups say, it can’t compel manufacturers to carry a government-scripted message they view as misleading. They also warn the rule would tangle interstate commerce and clash with federal food labeling standards, setting up an expensive, confusing patchwork at a time when the FDA is already moving on synthetic food dyes.
The industry’s worry is labels that imply bans where no bans exist will sow confusion rather than trust amongst consumers.
Texas lawmakers, however, see the measure as part of a broader public health mission. SB25 is a bill inspired by Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiatives and its sponsor, state senator Lois Kolkhorst, framed the ingredient disclosure as a nudge for reformulation.
“With this legislation, I am hopeful that food manufacturers will remove the harmful ingredients and choose not to have to label their products,” she said when the bill passed.
But the industry argues that’s precisely the problem: it’s a nudge built on a message they insist is inaccurate.
A state-by-state showdown
The lawsuit follows a flurry of state-level action on dyes, additives and ultra-processed ingredients, with lawmakers increasingly proposing their own bans or warnings as national consensus stalls. In West Virginia, manufacturers have already sued over that state’s ban on several synthetic dyes; California and New York have debated their own red flag lists. Manufacturers say the growing patchwork of state ingredient rules is already creating practical headaches, from packaging changes to supply chain adjustments.
And while the Texas labels don’t kick in until 2027, companies argue they’ll need a long runway to rethink recipes and overhaul production lines. Add to that the reality that many listed ingredients – including artificial colors, certain preservatives and bleached flour – remain legal under federal law. While the FDA has announced plans to phase out some petroleum-based dyes and has already banned a handful of additives, the agency still authorizes the majority of substances targeted by Texas. That mismatch is now central to the industry’s complaint: that one state shouldn’t be able to declare an ingredient effectively unsafe when federal regulators have not.
The ripple effect
The lawsuit also challenges the core logic of Texas’ global comparison. The bill instructs labels to claim that certain ingredients aren’t recommended for consumption by authorities in Europe, the UK, Canada or Australia. But the plaintiffs say no such blanket guidance exists, pointing out that regulators in those regions continue to allow many of the substances the Texas law flags.
According to the lawsuit, the Texas language risks leaving consumers with the wrong idea about how other countries assess these ingredients. Companies that sell into several regions say that kind of mismatch can create real problems, especially for bakery and snack producers. Many of the ingredients on the state’s list – from synthetic dyes to bleaching agents to specific preservatives – are foundational to categories where stability, color and shelf life carry enormous commercial weight. Reformulating isn’t always simple. Changing a dye may shift a product’s flavor perception. Removing a preservative may slash shelf life and inflate waste. Switching to unbleached flour can alter texture in ways consumers notice immediately.
Manufacturers say the Texas law forces a false choice: either scramble to rebuild recipes that comply with a state-level standard that doesn’t match federal science or tack a worrying label onto a product that consumers have bought for years without issue. The groups warn the move could also increase costs across the supply chain, from ingredient sourcing to packaging redesigns to marketing adjustments. For family-owned bakeries and regional snack producers, those costs could determine which products remain viable.
The case, American Beverage Association et al v. Paxton, now sits before the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. It’s both a constitutional challenge and a political one, testing how far states can go in pushing new food-safety narratives outside federal channels. And because the plaintiffs include groups representing giants from packaged foods to confectionery to beverage multinationals, the outcome could influence how aggressively other states pursue ingredient laws of their own.
As the food industry braces for a future shaped by consumer scrutiny, political pressure and shifting definitions of what counts as ‘clean’, the Texas fight may prove a watershed.
The case is American Beverage Association et al v. Paxton, US District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 25-cv-00566.