On June 22, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 25 (“SB 25”), a sweeping new measure promised to redefine consumer transparency and public health accountability in the food and beverage sector. The law requires that certain packaged products display a warning label when they contain ingredients disfavored by foreign health authorities, regardless of those ingredients’ legal status under U.S. law. SB 25 identifies 44 specific dyes and synthetic ingredients requiring a warning label, notably including Red Dye No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and bleached flour. The law also establishes new structural reforms such as the creation of a state nutrition advisory committee, updated medical training requirements, and enhanced physical activity mandates in schools. While the law does not take effect until January 1, 2027, it has already triggered significant concern within the food and beverage industry and is poised to prompt far-reaching legal challenges, compliance overhauls, and broader regulatory ripples throughout the U.S. marketplace.

Key Provisions and Requirements of SB 25

Under SB 25, if a food or beverage product contains one or more additives that are banned or not recommended for human consumption by regulatory authorities in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom, then the following warning must appear in a “prominent and reasonably visible” location on the label:

“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 statute empowers state officials to enforce compliance, with potential civil penalties of up to $50,000 per day, per violation, and authorizes the Texas Attorney General to seek injunctive relief and recover investigative costs associated with enforcement actions when voluntary compliance is not achieved or violations are ongoing. The new law does not impose retroactive liability for previous labeling practices.

While the practical reach of such enforcement mechanisms remains to be seen, the enforcement powers are likely to not only increase compliance costs but also expose companies to heightened litigation risks and potential reputational harm if violations occur or enforcement actions become public. The law also marks a notable departure from federal food labeling standards in favor of alignment with select international frameworks, and its breadth, scope, and enforcement apparatus are positioned to reshape both regulatory compliance, legal strategies, and business operations within the U.S. food and beverage industry for years to come.

Possible Legal Challenges

SB 25 is expected to invite a range of legal challenges, with the most immediate likely being federal preemption. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), state food labeling requirements that are “not identical to” federal provisions may be expressly or impliedly preempted, particularly where the FDA has promulgated comprehensive regulation. Thus, to preserve national uniformity and avoid conflicting state mandates, manufacturers will likely argue that because the additives targeted remain lawful under federal standards, the Texas labeling mandate frustrates the uniformity Congress sought to achieve, and thus, should be preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

Additionally, SB 25 may be vulnerable to challenges under the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, given its extraterritorial impact on products manufactured and distributed outside Texas. For example, in American Beverage Ass’n v. Snyder, a Michigan law requiring in-state beverage containers to carry a unique mark and prohibiting their sale outside the state, was struck down for impermissibly regulating conduct beyond the state’s borders.

Industry Response and Ongoing Compliance Considerations

Broadly, the industry’s response to the new law has been swift and multifaceted. Some manufacturers are exploring reformulation strategies to eliminate targeted additives, while others are weighing the feasibility of Texas-specific labeling or product withdrawal from the state. Trade associations have begun criticizing the law, arguing that it imposes misleading and non-science-based warnings that conflict with FDA determinations. Industry representatives have raised concerns about the potential for consumer confusion, particularly where the same product may carry a warning label in Texas but not in other states. Some companies may consider pre-enforcement declaratory relief actions or the viability of federal lobbying.

While industry players choose their respective approaches to the law, in the immediate future it may be necessary for manufacturers to conduct audits to identify affected products, evaluate reformulation timelines, and model the cost implications of compliance versus market exit.

Looking Ahead – The Broader Policy Context and National Implications

While California and New York are the historical leaders in regulating food additives, Texas’s entry into this policy space—alongside recent legislation in West Virginia—suggests a new and strong political appetite for structural interventions aimed at curbing chronic disease and reducing long-term healthcare costs through upstream regulatory action. Additionally, the inclusion of further provisions related to nutrition training and school-based physical activity underscores that SB 25 is not merely a labeling statute, but a systemic public health initiative that seeks to simultaneously embed preventative health principles into education, clinical practice, and consumer behavior.

For national brands, the long-term implications of SB 25 may extend well beyond Texas. Even if litigation delays or narrows enforcement, the commercial reality of national distribution models may incentivize companies to proactively reformulate or align with the Texas standard to avoid disjointed compliance strategies. In that sense, SB 25 may function as de facto national reform, regardless of judicial outcomes.

Looking ahead, manufacturers, distributors, and regulatory counsel would be well-advised to monitor legal developments, anticipate broader regulatory diffusion, and prepare for the likelihood that more states could adopt the same or similar frameworks, leading to a patchwork of regulations varying by US state. 

Listen to this post

Joseph Schafer also contributed to this article.