More than 100 bills have been introduced in legislatures in at least 36 states seeking to regulate the food industry in line with goals of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The bills range from banning certain ingredients in school meals to prohibiting some ingredients in food throughout an entire state. Food industry representatives warn that these efforts could have major consequences for food prices and availability.
Last week lawmakers in Texas and Louisiana passed bills to impose strict labeling requirements that now await their governors' signatures.
The Louisiana bill, SB14, would ban some ingredients — including several food dyes, additives and artificial sweeteners like sucralose — from school meals starting in the 2028-2029 school year. The bill would not apply to food in vending machines or concession stands.
It also would require manufacturers to label any food item in the state if it includes one ingredient on a more expansive list. In addition to food dyes and additives, the list includes interesterified soybean oil — in which fat molecules are modified — and synthetic trans fatty acid.
The label requirement includes a QR code that directs consumers to a manufacturer-controlled website with a notice that the product includes a certain ingredient. It should also link to FDA information on food chemical safety and approvals. The mandate would kick in Jan. 1, 2028.
The bill would require restaurants and other food service establishments to inform customers on menus or another visible place if they use seed oils — corn, soybean, canola and sunflower oils.
The Texas bill, known as “Make Texas Healthy Again,” includes several provisions. Notably, it would require products containing one of 44 ingredients include a warning label.
The label would read: “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."
This bill would kick in starting in 2027 with some conditions. It applies to any label “developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027.” Additionally, if a federal agency issues new regulations on an ingredient starting Sept. 1, it no longer requires the warning label.
MAHA influencers like Vani Hari, known as the Food Babe, cheered the Texas bill specifically online and encouraged followers to urge Texas Governor Greg Abbott to sign SB25 into law.
Vani Hari (Foodbabe.com)“Food companies would never slap this warning label on their products, and will be forced to stop using ingredients they don’t use overseas,” Hari wrote on X. “This could be the most important legislation in our movement right now.”
Instead of reformulating products, however, industry sources say it’s more likely that they will adjust supply chains or limit access to these products in the states. This could, in turn, drive up costs for consumers.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
John Hewitt, senior vice president of state affairs at the Consumer Brands Association, said both bills are “well intended” and have different, positive components. But he said specifically that the warning requirement included in the Texas bill poses significant concern.
Industry warns of possible consumer confusion
The label requirements could cause consumer confusion on top of burdens for manufacturers, Hewitt said. Information required in the Texas bill is largely not accurate because the ingredients are approved and deemed safe by the FDA, he argued.
Additional challenges and concerns arise because the states are adjacent. Meaning a shopper on the border of the states could see two separate labeling schemes in the same grocery trip.
“What does that say to consumers?” Hewitt asked. “What is your natural reaction to seeing two different labeling requirements on the same product in a normal week of grocery shopping?”
Most manufacturing is done on a regional or national basis, meaning food manufacturers would need to make tough decisions to comply with these bills should they be signed into law, he said.
Manufacturers would need to create a separate labeling process for those states, which is costly and challenging to the supply chain, Hewitt said. But on top of that, it will be difficult to keep differently labeled products separate.
For example, Hewitt said Dallas and Shreveport are only a few hours apart but would have completely different labeling requirements.
“How are we supposed to get two different trucks going to two different places, carrying the same exact product? It creates a lot of logistic and supply chain challenges to go ahead and keep those segregated,” Hewitt said.
Retailers who may buy products in bulk could need to rethink their strategy for stores on the border of Texas and Louisiana, Hewitt noted.
Along with direct costs of new labeling, Hewitt said “hidden costs” come with reduced choice. Some manufacturers could cut products in some areas because of the inability to separate supply chains.
Dan Colegrove, a partner at Prism Group, said both bills would create “irrational” labeling schemes that are not based on science and don’t consider technical challenges they present.
Dan Colegrove (Prism Group photo)The Texas bill includes some federal preemption language. For example, the bill appears to suggest that if a substance is deemed safe by the FDA then the warning label is not required. But many ingredients on the list are already approved by the federal government.
Colegrove said creating the label can take up to two years for many companies, even longer for small brands.
“We want a standard we can all adhere to. We want to inform consumers. We want safe food,” Colegrove said. “Manufacturers are going to do their best to comply just like they do with every law or regulation, but it's definitely going to be a challenge.”
There are additional concerns in Texas with products coming in from across the border or overseas, and how this bill would affect those items, Colegrove said.
Some suppliers will also consider if they can or want to meet the labeling requirements, particularly those in Texas.
“The labeling requirement in Texas is just misleading to consumers and so manufactures may choose not to put a deceptive or misleading label on their package,” Hewitt said.
While food manufacturers are constantly reformulating products to meet consumer demand, changing products to remove ingredients under the requirements is less attainable. Hewitt said these ingredients have gone through years of federal testing and approval, and companies would need to find a suitable substitute that maintains taste and safety.
As both bills await further action, CBA and other food industry groups are working with FDA and trying to educate both governors on the implications of these bills. If they become law, Hewitt said, companies will need to sort out if specifically the Texas requirement goes against the Federal Trade Commission’s requirement on false or misleading claims.
Other MAHA bills go beyond labeling requirements and propose full bans on certain ingredients. The measures could force companies to reformulate products, which is difficult if replacements are not approved or accessible in the necessary quantity.
So far, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia have enacted bills that would prohibit certain food dyes or chemicals in school meals. Others, like West Virginia’s HB 2354, would also eventually expand to banning products from the state.
The California assembly recently advanced a bill that would phase out ultraprocessed food from school meals by 2032.
Kennedy has publicly backed some bills that are in line with the administration’s desire to remove food dyes. Sponsors of the state legislation invoke Kennedy and the MAHA movement in touting their bills.
So far, federal action on food dyes largely relies on food companies voluntarily removing them. But the administration also cited the state bills as a driver behind federal action.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
