A judge has issued an order preventing Texas from implementing warning labels for food and drink products containing certain ingredients.
US District Judge Alan Albright has granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the measure.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The decision came in a case filed by four associations representing manufacturers: the American Beverage Association, the Consumer Brands Association, the National Confectioners Association and FMI, the Food Industry Association.
Texas lawmakers passed the legislation, known as SB 25, in June last year.
Section 9 of the bill would require products sold in the state that contain any of more than 40 specified substances, including synthetic food dyes and bleached flour, to carry a warning label.
Companies would have until 1 January 2027 to remove the listed ingredients or, from that date, apply the mandated warning.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThe required statement reads: “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 groups argued the named jurisdictions have not characterised the ingredients in question as “not recommended for human consumption”.
In granting the injunction, Albright said the plaintiffs are “substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim” that the requirement “violates the First Amendment by unconstitutionally compelling speech”.
The judge further said that, even under intermediate scrutiny, the state had neither demonstrated the rule would directly and materially advance its public-health objective and nor narrowly tailored to its desired result.
“The court agrees with plaintiffs that the state could have spoken itself by conducting an advertising campaign but has not done so. Nor has the State shown that such campaign would be ineffective for advancing the substantial interest of promoting public health,” the ruling read.
Last month, a judge invalidated a separate Texas statute governing how plant-based meat products can be labelled, citing similar First Amendment concerns about compelled or restricted speech.
Just Food approached the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for comment.
There has been growing attention on the recipes of food and drinks sold in the US since President Trump took office last year.
In April, the federal US Food and Drug Administration unveiled measures to phase out the use of petroleum-based food dyes by the end of next year. However, US NGO Center for Science in the Public Interest questioned the announcement, arguing “no rulemaking of any sort” was announced on that group of six dyes.
Several major US manufacturers have announced pledges to remove the so-called FD&C additives.
States like Texas have also sought to introduce local legislation on ingredients, prompting in some cases opposition from industry.
Last month, a judge in the US state of West Virginia issued a preliminary injunction against a law banning seven artificial colours.
In March last year, West Virginia introduced legislation outlawing the use of colours including Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5.
The ingredients were banned from food served through school programmes in the state from August. They were to be pulled from all food products sold in West Virginia by the start of 2028.
In October, the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) launched a bid to overturn the legislation – dubbed HB 2354 – arguing the regulation was passed “without providing any substantiated or rational basis for classifying covered products as unsafe”.
