Over the past month, Texas and Louisiana both enacted first-in-the-nation legislation that created specific labeling requirements for food products that contain certain ingredients. For both of these proposals, the food labeling provision was but one of a broad set of policies aimed at making Texas and Louisiana “healthy again.” This article will discuss the specifics of the bills enacted and highlight the potential impacts they will have on the American food system. To read the bills, click here and here.
Background on “MAHA”
Make American Healthy Again, or “MAHA,” is the name given to the nutrition and health initiative that Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert Kennedy has spearheaded. Specifically, on February 13, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the Make American Healthy Again Commission, and designated Secretary Kennedy as the Commission’s chair. Commission members included United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Martin Makary, Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, and more. The Commission was tasked with the mission of “advis[ing] and assist[ing] the President on how to best exercise his authority to address the childhood chronic disease crisis.” In alignment with this mission, on May 24, 2025, the Commission released the “MAHA report” – a publication that highlights their initial findings. Specifically, the report identifies “four primary drivers” that the Commission believes caused the rise of childhood chronic disease and lays out ten next steps to developing the Commission’s comprehensive strategy. This strategy is due in August 2025.
While the MAHA report itself did not include any tangible policy actions, Secretary Kennedy has been directing the movement on several MAHA food-related priorities through his role as head of HHS. For example, FDA announced its six-pronged plan to phase out synthetic petroleum-based color dyes from the food supply, rolled out a new food Chemical Review Program, approved new natural color additives, and established a joint nutrition-focused research program with the National Institutes of Health. In addition to these agency initiatives, Secretary Kennedy has been touring the country, often accompanied by USDA Secretary Rollins, to promote the adoption of MAHA policies on the state level. Typically at these events, the governor of the state where the Secretaries were visiting would sign some type of executive order or legislative action related to the MAHA priorities. For example, in June, Secretary Kennedy visited Oklahoma for the launch of the “Make Oklahoma Healthy Again” initiative. At this event, Governor Stitt signed a SNAP waiver request asking USDA to permit Oklahoma to ban SNAP participants from using their benefits to purchase soft drinks and candy. The governor also signed an executive order that, among other things, prohibited specific state agencies from supplying meals to the public that contain artificial dyes or flavors. Additionally, the Secretary also visited Louisiana where he joined the Governor as he signed SB 14, Louisiana’s “MAHA bill.”
Along with the national tour Secretary Kennedy is undertaking, a number of state legislatures took up the MAHA mantle this year and considered legislation in accordance with the MAHA priorities. Some states sought to ban artificial food dyes from being sold in the state, some sought to only ban the dyes from being present in school meals, some sought to prohibit the purchase of specific foods with SNAP benefits, some tried to define the term “ultra-processed foods,” and many tried to create nutrition related education initiatives. This article will specifically look at the Texas and Louisiana legislation but will mention proposals from other states. To learn more about food related laws passed in the states this year, click here to read NALC article “Food Law in the States – 2025 Update.”
Texas
On June 22, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 25 into law. This legislation enacts a number of MAHA policies including required nutrition training for medical professionals, physical education mandates for students, creation of a Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, and the adoption of labeling requirements for foods that contain certain ingredients.
Labeling rules
The most groundbreaking portion of SB 25 was its labeling requirements. SB 25 created a first in the nation labeling requirement that foods containing any of the bill’s 44 listed ingredients must bear a specific disclosure. This disclosure must say the following, “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 warning must be in a prominent and reasonably visible location and have “sufficiently high contrast with the immediate background” of the food product’s packaging. Additionally, food manufacturers or retailers that sell their products in the state of Texas must include the warning somewhere on their website. The list of 44 ingredients includes azodicarbonamide, bleached flour, propylparaben, interesterified soybean oil, any “certified food colors by the United States Food and Drug Administration,” and 39 listed others.
The bill clarifies that this labeling requirement does not apply to a product not intended for human consumption; food labeled, prepared, served, or sold in a restaurant; food labeled, prepared, or served in a retail establishment; a product regulated by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service; a product labeled with a warning or recommendation by the U.S. Surgeon General; a drug or dietary supplement; or a pesticide chemical, soil or plant nutrient, or other agricultural chemical used in the production, storage, or transportation of a raw agricultural commodity. Additionally, the bill clarifies that this section does not create a private cause of action in the case of a violation of the rule, but that the Texas attorney general might bring an action to enjoin the food’s manufacturer if it is found to have violated the labeling requirement.
These rules are deemed preempted if, under federal law, the government post-September 1, 2025, prohibits the use of the specific ingredient, imposes conditions on the use of the ingredient, or determines the ingredient as safe for human consumption. Thus, under this provision, ingredients that have been approved as safe by the federal government prior to September 1, 2025, are required to bear the disclosure. However, if one of the listed ingredients is reviewed again and determined as safe after September 1, 2025, it would no longer be required to bear a warning label. Additionally, this labeling requirement is preempted and has no effect if, after the September 2025 date, the federal government implements a law or regulation that requires an ultra-processed or processed food-related labeling statement. The warning requirement only applies to food product labels “developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027.”
Impacts of SB 25
It is noteworthy to mention a few things related to the impact of SB 25. The labeling requirement only impacts food for human consumption that is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Thus, meat, poultry, catfish, and unshelled egg products regulated by the USDA will not be required to bear this label. Additionally, the provisions for requiring the disclosure on internet sales are noteworthy because they apply to both manufacturers and retailers who sell food items on their websites in the state of Texas. Therefore, online retailers who may not have a physical presence in Texas should be aware that if their website is accessible to Texas residents, it is required to comply with this rule and bear the warning statement.
However, the bill is narrower in scope than it may initially appear to be. Though the bill goes into effect on September 1, 2025, the labeling requirements will only be applied to food product labels which are developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027. This means that any current food item containing any of the listed 44 ingredients will not be required to bear the warning label. Only new products or updated labels that are developed or copyrighted on or post-January 1, 2027 will require the warning. Lasty, the inclusion of language regarding preemption is notable because of the activity of the federal government on this topic. For example, Texas’ law states that if the federal government creates a rule that requires a warning label for “ultra-processed foods,” then the warning requirement created in SB 25 will have no effect. The topic of ultra-processed foods is one that the leadership at FDA has stated its intention of working on.
Louisiana
On June 20, 2025, Louisiana’s Governor Jeff Landry signed Senate Bill 14 into law. This bill included several food and nutrition related provisions. Specifically, the bill prohibits certain food ingredients from being served in schools, requires disclaimers on food items that contain certain ingredients, and mandates warnings to notify customers of seed oil use in food establishments. Additionally, this bill creates nutrition and metabolic health continuing education requirements for physicians, physician assistants, and registered nurses that practice in specific areas of medicine.
Prohibited ingredients
Under SB 14, Louisiana public schools and non-public schools that receive state funds shall not serve any food or beverage containing a prohibited ingredient to students. The bill identifies 15 “prohibited ingredients” including: blue dye 1, blue dye 2, green dye 3, red dye 3, red dye 40, yellow dye 5, yellow dye 6, azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxytoluene, potassium bromate, aspartame, sucralose, propylparaben, butylated hydroxyanisole, and acesulfame potassium. This prohibition applies to breakfasts and lunches served during regular school hours and to foods and beverages served by the school to a student during aftercare. However, the prohibition does not extend to food or beverages sold in concession stands or vending machines. This section also includes a provision requiring public schools and non-public schools that receive state funds to purchase food produced in Louisiana to the extent practicable. These requirements become effective at the beginning of the 2028-2029 school year.
Disclosure of Harmful Ingredients
Similar to the Texas bill, Louisiana’s SB 14 creates labeling disclosures for food items that contain specific ingredients. Using a list similar to Texas, SB 14 requires that a food item with any of 44 listed ingredients is required to include a label with a quick response code (QR code), and a statement indicating that additional ingredient information can be accessed by scanning the code. The QR code will take the scanner to a web page that is under the control of the manufacturer and contains the following disclaimer “NOTICE: This product contains {ingredient}. For more information about the ingredient, including FDA approvals, click here.” This disclaimer will link to the FDA webpage that details food chemical safety. The law clarifies that the disclosure requirement only applies to food or beverages intended for human consumption. The bill further explains that the disclosure is not required on drugs or dietary supplements; alcoholic beverages; food prepared and labeled in a retail food establishment; medical food; nor a product sold at retail as a multiunit package.
Notice for Seed Oils
SB 14 also includes a provision that requires food service establishments to notify customers of food prepared using seed oils. Under Louisiana law, a food service establishment is one that prepares food for human consumption for both individual service or for a group of people, regardless of whether consumption occurs on or off the premises and whether there is compensation for the food or not. LA Rev Stat § 40:5.5. This definition includes not only restaurants, but also caterers, charities that service food, schools, and prisons. Specifically, the provision mandates a disclaimer be included on the menu or another clearly visible location to inform customers of the potential presence of seed oil in food at the establishment. The disclaimer must say, “Some menu items may contain or be prepared using seed oils.” Under the bill, a seed oil includes canola or rapeseed oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, rice bran oil, safflower oil, soybean oil, or sunflower oil. This provision, along with the provision requiring ingredient disclosure, will become effective on January 1, 2028.
Impact of SB 14
Though the labeling requirements created in Texas and Louisiana’s bills include similar components, Louisiana’s impact is much more straightforward. While SB 14 will be preempted if a federal statute, regulation, or guidance is enacted that is equivalent to or more restrictive than the requirements of the bill, it does not include the narrow conditions for preemption that Texas does, nor does it include a “grandfather clause” for pre-existing labels. Instead, the labeling requirements are simply set to go into effect on January 1, 2028, and will apply to “any food product offered for sale in this state . . . if the product contains any ingredient identified.” This means that by the start of 2028, any product containing any of the listed ingredients must bear the disclosure on its packaging. Further the manufacturer of the product must create and maintain webpages on its website for the QR code to link to.
Other state enactments
As mentioned before, Texas and Louisiana are just the latest two states to enact legislation pertaining to the “MAHA” priorities. For example, earlier this year, similar to one portion of the Louisiana bill, West Virginia, Virginia, Arizona, Delaware, Tennessee, and Utah passed legislation banning foods with certain ingredients from being served in school meals. Texas also passed a separate bill that did the same thing. Additionally, West Virginia’s bill included a general additive ban – prohibiting the sale generally in the state of foods containing specific ingredients. Though not all states passing and considering this legislation are doing so under the “MAHA mantle.” For example, before “MAHA” existed, California was the first state to enact legislation to prohibit the sale and ban from school meals foods that contain certain food additives. To read more about those laws, click here and here. Now, California is considering legislation that would give the first statutory definition to the term “ultra-processed foods.” AB 1264 has passed California’s Assembly and is currently being considered by lawmakers in California’s Senate.
To learn more about FDA’s synthetic dye plan, click here to read NALC article “FDA Announces Plan to ‘Phase Out’ Synthetic Dyes.”
To learn more about the federal government’s movement on these issues, click here to read NALC article “FDA Updates: June 2025.”