Texas Food Warning Labels: What You Need to Know [2025]

Synthetic dyes are in 19% of packaged foods, based on a review of nearly 40,000 U.S. grocery items published in the Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics.

In response to growing concerns like these, Texas passed a new law in June 2025 requiring warning labels on products containing certain food additives.

In this article, we explain what the Texas food warning labels law includes, why it's facing backlash, and how different groups are responding.

Let’s begin!

What Is the New Texas Additive Warning Law?

Texas has passed a new law that will change how food is labeled in the U.S. Senate Bill 25 (SB 25).

Known as the “Make Texas Healthy Again” bill, requires bold warning labels on packaged foods that contain additives banned or restricted in other countries.

Governor Greg Abbott signed the law on June 22, 2025, and it takes effect for newly developed or updated labels starting January 1, 2027.

Here’s what you need to know.

The Warning Label

Any packaged food sold in Texas that contains one or more of 44 targeted additives must display this statement:

“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 is the first U.S. law to require warning labels based on foreign regulatory assessments, rather than nutritional content such as sugar or fat.

➸ Label Placement Requirements:

• It must appear on the front of the package or another visible area.

• The text must be high-contrast and at least as large as the font used for the ingredient list.

• It must be placed where it is “likely to be seen and understood” by consumers.

The Goal

Supporters say the law is about:

• Transparency: Giving consumers clear info about what’s in their food.

• Public health: Reducing exposure to additives flagged elsewhere as risky.

• Market pressure: Encouraging food manufacturers to reformulate products.

Groups like Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) have praised the move as a sign that states are no longer waiting for federal agencies to act.

The Backlash

On the other hand, critics, including food manufacturers, legal scholars, and some scientists, say the bill has serious flaws:

• Misleading labels: Many additives on the list are still permitted (under certain limits) by the same foreign authorities cited in the warning.

• Legal risks: Companies may be forced to add warning labels that don’t reflect scientific consensus, raising First Amendment and federal preemption issues.

"Warnings have to be accurate in order to be legal."

Thomas Galligan, Center for Science in the Public Interest

It could also lead to costly compliance, forcing companies to:

• Reformulate products,

• Develop Texas-only packaging,

• Or challenge the law in court.

What the Texas Food Additive Warning Law Requires

Senate Bill 25 (SB 25) introduces sweeping new requirements to Texas’s Health & Safety Code.

Here’s a breakdown of what the law states and its implications for manufacturers, retailers, and regulators.

Which Products Are Covered?

The law applies to packaged food products intended for human consumption sold in Texas, whether in stores or online.

This includes products from out-of-state manufacturers selling into Texas.

➸ What’s not covered:

• Restaurant food,

• Fresh, prepared items in grocery stores,

• USDA-regulated meat and poultry,

• Alcohol (which already carries federal warnings),

• Infant formula and dietary supplements,

• Agricultural chemicals on raw produce.

➸ What’s covered:

Retail products that include candies, snacks, cereals, baked goods, and beverages.

The types of shelf-stable, ultra-processed foods commonly found in supermarkets and convenience stores.

What Triggers the Warning?

SB 25 identifies a list of 44 specific food additives, including:

• Synthetic dyes (e.g., Red 40, Yellow 5),

• Preservatives (e.g., BHA, BHT),

• Dough conditioners (e.g., potassium bromate, azodicarbonamide),

• Fat substitutes and sweeteners (e.g., olestra),

• Processing aids and other synthetic chemicals.

➸ The warning is required if:

• One or more of the 44 additives are present in the product.

• The additive is listed on the ingredient label, in accordance with current FDA disclosure rules.

Who Enforces It and How?

The Texas Attorney General is responsible for enforcement, and some of the repercussions include:

• Can seek court injunctions and impose civil penalties.

• Fines can reach $50,000 per day per product (SKU) in violation.

• Enforcement applies to each individual product, not to the company as a whole.

Necessary: The law does not allow private lawsuits, unlike California’s Prop 65. Only the state can take action.

Which Additives Are Targeted and Why the Labels Are Called ‘Inaccurate’

The Texas law singles out 44 food additives that lawmakers say pose potential health risks. 

Let’s explore them in greater detail.

What’s on the List?

The additives in SB 25 cover a wide range of ingredients flagged in various health studies for potential links to:

• Cancer,

• Hyperactivity in children,

• Hormonal disruption,

• Gastrointestinal effects,

• Long-term metabolic impact.

Examples of high-profile additives on the list include:

• Potassium bromate: Banned in the EU due to cancer concerns.

• Red No. 3: Banned in the EU and now being phased out by the FDA.

• Titanium dioxide: Removed from EU food use in 2022 over nanoparticle toxicity.

• Azodicarbonamide (ADA): Banned in Europe and Australia, once nicknamed the “yoga mat chemical.”

• Propylparaben: Delisted in the EU due to hormone-related risks.

So Why the ‘Inaccurate’ Criticism?

While many additives on the list are banned abroad, some are not.

In fact, around a dozen of the 44 are still permitted in all four jurisdictions (EU, UK, Canada, Australia), just with limits or usage guidelines.

Critics point out that the label wording is misleading in these cases.

“The law, as passed, may not end up having the impact that legislators intended.”

Melanie Benesh, Environmental Working Group

The law requires a warning that the ingredient is “not recommended for human consumption” by at least one of those regions, but for some substances, this simply isn’t true.

➸ Here are a few examples that are not banned but still appear on Texas’s list:

• Blue 1 and Blue 2: Legally used in candies and drinks in the EU.

• BHA and BHT: Permitted in limited amounts in the UK and EU.

• Diacetyl: Allowed in flavorings with restrictions.

• DATEM (an emulsifier): Widely permitted in baked goods.

• Sodium aluminum sulfate: Used in baking powders abroad.

• Interesterified fats: Commonly used as trans-fat replacements, not banned.

• Lactylated fatty acid esters: Used as dough conditioners, not restricted.

Additionally, in some cases, Texas’s list includes additives that are already banned by the FDA, making the warning redundant.

➸ For example:

• Red No. 4: Banned in the U.S. since 1976.

• Partially Hydrogenated Oils (PHOs): Banned by the FDA by 2018.

While technically these ingredients are no longer allowed in U.S. foods, their inclusion in SB 25 raises questions about how carefully the list was reviewed.

Scientific and Regulatory Views on the Additives Targeted by Texas

Let’s break down what we know about a few of the most talked-about additives on Texas’s list.

Artificial Food Dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5, etc.)

These dyes have long been a source of controversy, especially when it comes to children.

➸ What the science says:

• A 2007 UK study (the Southampton study) found links between six artificial dyes and increased hyperactivity in children.

• That prompted the EU to require warning labels on foods with these dyes, though they stopped short of banning them.

• In the U.S., the FDA reviewed the same data and ruled that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to require warnings.

New research has suggested possible links between Red 40 and gut inflammation in mice, raising fresh concerns.

➸ Additional note: These dyes don’t add nutritional value and are primarily used for aesthetic purposes.

While they’re still legal in the U.S., public health experts argue there’s enough reason to be cautious, especially for children.

Titanium Dioxide (TiO₂)

This whitening agent is another ingredient where global regulators disagree.

➸ What the science says:

• The EU banned TiO₂ in 2022, citing concerns that tiny particles (nanoparticles) in the additive might damage DNA.

• Other regulators, including those in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, reviewed the same studies and concluded that it’s safe in food.

• The FDA reaffirmed TiO₂’s safety in 2024, stating no cancer or DNA damage was found in rat studies using food-grade versions.

➸ Additional note: The EU’s decision was based on the “precautionary principle” (better safe than sorry), while the U.S. took a “no proven harm” approach.

Texas aligns more closely with Europe in this regard, despite the scientific consensus being mixed.

Potassium Bromate & Dough Additives

Potassium bromate is one of the clearest examples where science and international policy line up, except in the U.S.

➸ What the science says:

• Studies since the 1980s have shown it causes tumors in rats.

• It’s classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

• Most countries have banned it in food, but the U.S. still allows it, although the FDA advised bakers to stop using it as far back as 1991.

Additives like azodicarbonamide (ADA), used in bread, also raise concerns.

ADA breaks down into compounds that may pose cancer risks during baking and has been banned in the EU.

BHA and BHT (Synthetic Preservatives)

For example, these are used to prevent oils from going rancid, but their long-term safety is a matter of debate.

➸ What the science says:

• BHA has caused tumors in rodents and is listed as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by U.S. health agencies.

• However, some researchers argue that these results may not apply to humans due to anatomical differences.

• Both BHA and BHT are still allowed by the FDA and EFSA (Europe’s food safety authority), but with strict limits.

➸ Additional note: Although these chemicals may be safe in small amounts, concerns persist regarding their potential for cancer and developmental effects.

Public health groups often ask: If safer alternatives exist, why not use those instead?

How Stakeholders Are Responding

Texas’s food label law has triggered strong reactions across the board.

Public health groups support it with reservations, the food industry is preparing legal challenges, and politicians from both sides have found rare common ground.

What the Texas Law Could Mean in Practice

Texas’s bold new law triggers a chain reaction with potential consequences across the U.S. food system.

From legal battles to reformulations and ripple effects in other states, here’s what may lie ahead.

1. Federal vs. State Standards: Is Texas Overstepping?

Food labeling is usually governed at the federal level.

The FDA sets national rules, and states typically can’t add their own unless they’re identical. Well, Texas’s law isn’t.

That opens the door for legal action, especially on two fronts:

• Preemption lawsuits: The industry could argue that federal law supersedes Texas’s warning label. But Texas may counter that its label is about safety, not nutrition, and similar arguments helped California defend its warning laws.

• First Amendment challenges: Companies might claim the Texas warning forces them to say something misleading. If courts agree the warning implies a false consensus or overstates risk, the law could be delayed or even struck down.

If Texas wins, other states may follow with their warning laws, but if Texas loses, the issue could shift back to the FDA and Congress.

2. How the Food Industry Might Respond

With a 2027 start date, food makers have time to act, but none of the options are easy or cheap:

• Reformulate products to eliminate the flagged additives. This is what Texas likely wants: cleaner ingredients, nationwide. Many manufacturers may switch entirely to warning-free formulas rather than create Texas-only versions.

• Add warning labels to packaging, either for Texas only or for nationwide use. But separate packaging is expensive. If national labels become common, it could spark a Prop 65-style scenario: the warnings become so widespread they lose meaning.

• Stop selling in Texas, especially for niche products that rely on banned ingredients. But avoiding a market as big as Texas (nearly 30 million people) isn’t a sustainable long-term strategy.

• Fight the law through lawsuits or lobbying. Industry groups might push the FDA to step in and create a federal standard, or ask Congress to preempt state laws altogether.

3. What Shoppers Might See in Stores

The law is meant to help consumers, but what will they actually encounter:

• Behavior change: Some shoppers, especially parents, may avoid foods with warnings. This could gradually shift consumption habits toward more environmentally friendly options.

• Confusion or warning fatigue: If warnings appear on too many products, people may become desensitized to them. And if any of the warnings prove factually shaky, it could erode trust.

• Marketing shifts: Expect to see more labels boasting “No XYZ Additives” as a selling point. Brands that never used the flagged ingredients might take the opportunity to stand out.

4. State Reactions and Federal Fallout

Texas’s law won’t exist in a vacuum. It could inspire or alarm other lawmakers:

• Other states may follow suit: If Texas’s model proves successful, states like New York or Illinois may adopt similar policies. Warning labels are politically easier to pass than outright bans.

• Federal pressure could mount: The FDA might be compelled to harmonize standards, ban certain additives, or clarify the scope of state actions. That could mean updating how the GRAS process works or introducing new national labels.

• Trade ripple effects: Since the Texas law cites foreign bans, it could create unusual situations, such as requiring a warning about the EU not recommending an ingredient when the EU permits it. That highlights the messy intersection of global standards and local laws.

How Signify Can Help Brands Navigate Additive Disclosure and Labeling Compliance

Signify is an AI compliance agent built to help consumer goods manufacturers keep up with evolving regulations, like Texas’s new food additive warning law.

It automates the most time-consuming compliance tasks and ensures labels meet both U.S. and international standards before products hit the shelf.

Key benefits for compliance:

• Automated ingredient checks: Instantly flags additives restricted in Texas, the EU, UK, Canada, or Australia.

• Label validation: Confirms warning language is accurate, consistent, and legally defensible.

• Global regulation monitoring: Tracks over 1,000 frameworks, including FDA, EFSA, and others.

• Version-controlled artwork validation: Prevents costly errors and ensures compliance from first draft to final print.

Try Signify today to validate your food labels, manage additive compliance, and stay ahead of Texas’s new ingredient warning rules.