In a significant legal development, a judge has issued an order that stops the state of Texas from implementing new warning labels on food and drink products that contain specific ingredients.
US District Judge Alan Albright has granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the enforcement of this controversial measure. This ruling is part of an ongoing legal battle that centers on the implications of public health regulations versus constitutional rights.
This significant decision arose from a lawsuit initiated by four industry associations: the American Beverage Association, the Consumer Brands Association, the National Confectioners Association, and FMI, the Food Industry Association. These groups have raised concerns about the implications of the new regulations.
In June of last year, Texas lawmakers passed legislation known as SB 25. This law aimed to mandate that products sold in the state containing any of over 40 designated substances—including synthetic food dyes and bleached flour—display a warning label. This effectively placed a heavy burden on food manufacturers and retailers operating in Texas.
According to the stipulations in Section 9 of the bill, companies would have until January 1, 2027, to either eliminate these specified ingredients or begin applying the mandated warning labels. The required warning states: “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 trade associations argue that the jurisdictions mentioned have not labeled the specified ingredients as “not recommended for human consumption.” In granting the injunction, Judge Albright articulated that the plaintiffs are “substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim” on the grounds that the requirement “violates the First Amendment by unconstitutionally compelling speech.”
Furthermore, the judge indicated that the state failed to demonstrate that the rule would significantly advance its public health objectives, nor was it narrowly tailored to achieve its intended result.
The ruling elaborated on the court’s perspective: “The court agrees with plaintiffs that the state could have spoken itself by conducting an advertising campaign but has not done so.” It continued to state that there was no evidence suggesting that such a campaign would have been ineffective in promoting public health.
Notably, this ruling follows another case where a Texas judge invalidated a different statute regarding the labeling of plant-based meat products, again raising First Amendment concerns regarding compelled or restricted speech.
Just Food has reached out to the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for further comment on this development.
The scrutiny surrounding the ingredients used in food and drinks sold in the United States has intensified since President Trump took office. In April, the federal U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled initiatives to phase out petroleum-based food dyes by the end of the following year. Nevertheless, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a U.S. NGO, has questioned the effectiveness of these measures, highlighting that “no rulemaking of any sort” was announced for a group of six specific dyes.
Moreover, several leading U.S. manufacturers have pledged to remove the controversial FD&C additives from their products. As various states, including Texas, continue to pursue local legislation on ingredient labeling, industry opposition has surfaced in multiple cases.
In a coinciding case, a judge in West Virginia recently issued a preliminary injunction against a law banning seven artificial colors, which underscores the ongoing legal challenges surrounding food ingredient regulations.
In March of last year, West Virginia introduced legislation outlawing specific dyes, including Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5. Initially, these ingredients were banned from food served through school programs, with a complete removal from all food products sold in the state to be enacted by 2028.
In October, the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) initiated efforts to overturn this legislation—referred to as HB 2354—contending that it was enacted “without providing any substantiated or rational basis for classifying covered products as unsafe.”
