State Food Additive & Dye Law Tracker

The state food additive laws: Overview

• With no single federal standard, states are writing their own rulebooks. States from California to West Virginia have enacted their own food-dye and additive laws. A product that’s legal in one state can be restricted, or require a warning label, in the next.
• Two dates in January 2027 function as national reformulation deadlines. California’s ban on four additives (Jan. 1) and FDA’s Red No. 3 deadline (Jan. 15) arrive within two weeks of each other — and because reformulating once is more practical than state-by-state, they operate nationally in effect.
• The two most sweeping state laws are on hold in court. West Virginia’s statewide ban and Texas’s warning-label requirement have both been preliminarily enjoined — what looks like law on paper is not currently being enforced, and both cases are on appeal. The West Virginia appeal is tentatively set for argument in the Fourth Circuit’s December 8–11, 2026 session; the Texas appeal is fully briefed in the Fifth Circuit with no argument date yet.
• The federal “food dye ban” is a handshake, not a law. The push to remove six petroleum-based dyes is voluntary — no rulemaking has been initiated, the dyes remain federally legal, and adherence rests on company pledges. The binding restrictions are coming from individual states and their school systems.
• A state no longer needs a statute to act. In July 2026 Florida’s attorney general opened a consumer-protection investigation into potassium bromate — an additive FDA still permits — in a state with no additive law on the books. Compliance exposure is no longer a question of which states passed something.
• New York is one signature away from joining the ban states. The Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act (S1239-F/A1556-G) — banning Red 3, potassium bromate, and propylparaben, and adding the nation’s first state GRAS-disclosure mandate — passed both chambers this spring; as of September 15, 2026 it has not been delivered to the Governor (last recorded legislative action April 21, 2026).

The statewide laws

Pending, not law: Michigan HB 5069, which would prohibit the sale of food containing brominated vegetable oil, propylparaben, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2 or Yellow 6 in the state (the substance list is from a practitioner round-up; the Legislature’s own page carries the bill history but not the substances), passed the House on June 17, 2026 (56–51) and was referred to the Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee on June 23; the Senate had taken no action as of September 15, 2026. It is noted here because it would be a statewide sales restriction rather than a school-meal rule; it enters the table only if enacted.

The disclosure laws

School Meal Laws

School-restriction laws are the largest category — 11 bills enacted across eight states in 2025 alone (Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, by one practitioner count). Add California, whose school laws date from 2024 and October 2025, and 2026’s four new states — Nebraska, Iowa, Alaska and New Hampshire, with Tennessee expanding the ban it already had — and thirteen states now have an enacted school-meal law. In five the restriction is in force: West Virginia (since August 1, 2025), Delaware (since July 1, 2026), and Utah, Arizona and Texas (from the 2026–27 school year). The rest phase in between July 2027 and the 2028–29 school year, except California’s ultraprocessed-food phase-out, which runs from the 2029–30 through the 2035–36 school years.

Enforcement without a statute

A fourth category does not fit the tables above: a state attorney general acting on an additive under general consumer-protection authority rather than an additive statute. Texas reached it first, in 2025, over the marketing of dyed cereals; Florida’s July 2026 subpoena is the newer and broader use of it, aimed at the presence of an additive FDA still permits.

Florida has no additive statute — bills to ban potassium bromate and BVO died in committee in 2025 without a hearing, and the sponsor has said he intends to refile. Where the legislature did not act, the attorney general reached for general consumer-protection authority instead, against a substance FDA continues to permit in flour. Whether marketing a federally permitted additive can support a deceptive-practices theory is the question an eventual enforcement action would have to answer; a subpoena decides nothing.

As a template it requires no bill, no session and no effective date, and Texas’s 2025 investigations show the mechanism already working in another state. For a multi-state seller it means state exposure can no longer be mapped by asking which states passed something. Full analysis: The State Food Additive Patchwork, July 2026 →

The federal layer

The state pages above make full sense only against what FDA has and hasn’t done — which is why this tracker carries both on one page.

Why the patchwork is likely to remain

Nothing pending federally preempts the states. The voluntary dye phase-out creates no legal obligation; the Red 3 revocation covers one dye; and none of the GRAS reform bills in Congress includes preemption. Nor does FDA’s proposed rule to make GRAS notification mandatory (published August 11, 2026; comments due December 9, 2026): it contains no preemption provision and states that it “does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States” under Executive Order 13132 — detail on the GRAS Reform Tracker →. Texas’s SB 25 and Louisiana’s SB 14 are the exceptions that prove the rule — each contains its own federal-preemption trigger, and DSHS’s contested reading of the Texas clause is now one of the two things (alongside the injunction) that could hollow that law out. For a multi-state seller, the operative reality is what one food-law practitioner summarized bluntly: the most restrictive state tends to set the national formulation. That is why the two January 2027 deadlines — AB 418 and Red 3 — function as de facto national reformulation dates.

Ongoing litigation

Two active cases, reported here as contested and unresolved. In IACM v. Singh (S.D. W.Va., No. 2:25-cv-00588, filed Oct. 3, 2025 per the docket), the court preliminarily enjoined West Virginia’s statewide provisions on December 23, 2025, finding the “poisonous and injurious” standard unconstitutionally vague — while rejecting the equal-protection and bill-of-attainder theories — and leaving the school provisions in force. The state’s appeal is before the Fourth Circuit (No. 26-1085, filed Jan. 22, 2026); the district court stayed its proceedings on February 17, 2026 pending the appellate mandate; briefing closed with the state’s reply on June 8, 2026; and on September 8, 2026 the Fourth Circuit tentatively calendared the case for oral argument during its December 8–11, 2026 session. In American Beverage Ass’n v. Paxton (W.D. Tex., No. 6:25-cv-00566), a federal court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Texas’s warning requirement on February 11, 2026, against the plaintiff associations and their members on First Amendment grounds; the Texas AG’s interlocutory appeal is docketed at the Fifth Circuit (No. 26-50192, filed Mar. 5, 2026), the district case was stayed on April 9, 2026 pending the mandate, and the appeal became fully briefed when the AG’s reply brief was filed on August 31, 2026 (appellees’ brief August 3). No argument date had been set in the Texas appeal, and neither circuit had ruled, as of September 15, 2026. Both outcomes shape how far the compelled-speech and vagueness theories travel — every state on this page is watching. Rulings will be logged here as they come down.

How companies are responding

Industry guidance broadly converges: treat the January 15, 2027 Red 3 deadline as firm and national — a reading FDA’s August 5, 2026 removal of the administrative stay, which confirmed the date rather than moving it, now supports directly; map state-by-state exposure for products sold into California, West Virginia, Texas, and the school-law states; and watch the voluntary-pledge landscape, where being a visible non-participant carries its own commercial risk with school and retail buyers. Major manufacturers’ public reformulation pledges — and FDA’s February labeling guidance rewarding them — have made reformulation the observable industry default well ahead of any mandate. Regbase reports these observable postures; it does not advise on them.

FAQ

What takes effect January 1, 2027? California AB 418 — the ban on Red 3, BVO, potassium bromate, and propylparaben in food sold in California. Two weeks later, on January 15, FDA’s Red 3 deadline for food arrives nationwide.

Is Red 40 banned? Not federally. FDA has initiated no rulemaking against Red 40 or the other five remaining petroleum-based dyes; the phase-out announced in April 2025 is voluntary. State laws are a different matter: Red 40 is covered by West Virginia’s (enjoined) statewide ban and by enacted school meal laws.

Is West Virginia’s ban in effect? Partially. The school-meal provisions have been in force since August 1, 2025. The statewide provisions (scheduled for January 1, 2028) are preliminarily enjoined while the litigation proceeds; the Fourth Circuit has tentatively scheduled argument on the state’s appeal for its December 8–11, 2026 session.

Is the Texas warning label required? The requirement applies to labels developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027 — but enforcement is currently preliminarily enjoined (Feb. 11, 2026) against the challenging trade associations and their members, and the implementing rule’s scope is itself contested. The situation can change with a single ruling.

Do the federal actions preempt the state laws? Generally no — no pending federal action preempts them, which is why the patchwork persists. Both Texas’s and Louisiana’s laws contain their own preemption triggers tied to future federal action on listed ingredients.

Can a state act against an additive it hasn’t banned? Florida is testing exactly that. In July 2026 its attorney general subpoenaed General Mills over potassium bromate under the state’s consumer-protection statute, with no additive law on the Florida books and no lawsuit filed. It is an investigation, not a finding — but it is a route that needs no legislative session.

Which states restrict dyes in schools? Laws are enacted in thirteen states. Five are in force — West Virginia (since August 1, 2025), Delaware (since July 1, 2026), and Utah, Arizona and Texas (from the 2026–27 school year; Texas’s covers only free and reduced-price meals). Virginia’s takes effect July 1, 2027; California’s AB 2316 on December 31, 2027; Iowa’s and Tennessee’s from the 2027–28 school year; Nebraska’s restriction applies on or after August 1, 2027, per the slip law; Alaska’s applies from January 1, 2028, New Hampshire’s from July 1, 2028, and Louisiana’s from the 2028–29 school year.

How fast is this moving? Over 140 additive bills ran across 38 states in 2025, and 2026 sessions have added new laws (Nebraska, Tennessee’s expansion, Iowa, Alaska, New Hampshire), with Michigan’s statewide bill pending in its Senate. This page logs each enactment as it lands.

Changelog

• September 15, 2026 — Orange B revocation in effect; both appeals fully briefed, West Virginia’s calendared for December argument; Texas, New Hampshire and Alaska added to the school-meal table; Alabama removed. Coverage corrections made after an independent second read the same day: Texas SB 314 (2025) was missing from the school-meal table although it appears in practitioner counts of 2025 enactments — new Education Code § 33.9011 bars 18 listed substances (BVO, potassium bromate, propylparaben, azodicarbonamide, BHA, seven dyes, “citrus red 3,” Orange B, two ammonia caramels, titanium dioxide, and substantially similar additives) from free and reduced-price meals, signed May 27, 2025, applying “beginning with the 2026-2027 school year” to contracts entered or renewed on or after September 1, 2026 — verified against the enrolled text and bill history. Delaware SB 69 (Ch. 27) verified against the session law: Red 40 only, “effective immediately and … implemented beginning July 1, 2026,” so Delaware is now shown in force. Louisiana Act 463 (SB 14) verified against the enrolled act: the school provision (R.S. 17:197.2) “shall become effective beginning with the 2028-2029 school year,” later than this page had implied. Nebraska LB 940’s approval date (April 14, 2026) confirmed on the Legislature’s page; its effective date is taken from the slip law (see below). The in-force count is therefore five (WV, DE, UT, AZ, TX), the state count thirteen, and the “eight states in 2025” figure is now spelled out so readers can see it includes Texas and predates California’s 2025 law. Also corrected on second read: the IACM v. Singh district complaint date (Oct. 3, 2025 per the docket, not Oct. 6), and the other-state-AG sentence below, now limited to what was actually searched. Federal layer: the Orange B final order (91 FR, July 23, 2026, Docket FDA-2025-C-3543) took effect September 8, 2026 as ordered — the Federal Register API shows no stay, correction, or further FDA document on Orange B or Citrus Red No. 2 since July 23, and no final order on Citrus Red No. 2; the BHT docket (FDA-2026-N-2526) shows nothing after the July 30 reopening notice. Also noted: FDA’s proposed rule making GRAS notification mandatory published August 11, 2026 (comments due December 9, 2026); it contains no preemption provision and its federalism section finds no substantial direct effects on the States — added as one sentence under “Why the patchwork is likely to remain,” with full coverage on the GRAS tracker. Litigation (from the appellate dockets via CourtListener/RECAP): in the Fourth Circuit, IACM v. Singh (No. 26-1085) briefing closed June 8, 2026 and on September 8, 2026 the court tentatively calendared the case for oral argument during its December 8–11, 2026 session; in the Fifth Circuit, American Beverage Ass’n v. Paxton (No. 26-50192) became fully briefed when the AG’s reply brief was filed August 31, 2026 (appellees’ brief August 3); no argument date is set and neither circuit has ruled. School-meal table: New Hampshire SB 577 (Chapter 270, signed July 2, 2026, effective July 1, 2028) added — verified against the General Court bill-status page and the adopted House amendment (2026-1778H) that supplies the enacted text: only Red 3, Citrus Red No. 2, and Orange B are prohibited in school breakfast and lunch; the six other dyes are “encouraged to avoid” only, and foods outside the meal programs are exempt. Alaska SB 187 (Chapter 17 SLA 26, status date June 18, 2026, effective January 1, 2028) added — verified against the enrolled act (new AS 14.03.087) and the Legislature’s BASIS status page. Alabama removed from the “Others enacted” row: the page’s entry (“2025 law eff. June 1, 2026; 2026 tightening eff. October 1, 2026”) could not be tied to any dye or additive statute. The dates match, word for word, a July 2026 practitioner summary of Alabama’s corn-masa folic-acid fortification laws (“The 2025 law goes into effect on June 1, 2026, while the tightened restrictions in the 2026 law go into effect on October 1, 2026”); the enrolled 2026 folic-acid amendment located on the Legislature’s site (HB 139, amending Act 2025-387) carries an October 1, 2027 effective date, a discrepancy that does not matter here because neither act concerns dyes. Alabama’s 2025 dye bills (HB 491, HB 580) have no enrolled version, no 2026 dye enactment was found, and Alabama is absent from the practitioner count of 2025 enactments. Utah (HB 402, “beginning in the 2026-2027 school year,” verified against the enrolled bill) and Arizona (HB 2164, Laws 2025 ch. 52, same trigger, verified against the chaptered law) are now shown as in force. Virginia re-verified against Va. Code § 22.1-207.4:3, which the Code itself labels “(Effective July 1, 2027).” Louisiana SB 57 re-verified against Act 735 and its résumé digest: QR-code provisions effective December 31, 2028 (a July 2026 practitioner summary giving January 1, 2029 is not supported by the act). School-law state count corrected from eleven to thirteen (Alabama out; Texas, New Hampshire, Alaska in). Statewide table: New York S1239-F still shows no action after April 21, 2026 on the Assembly’s bill-actions page and has not been delivered to the Governor; Michigan HB 5069 (passed the House June 17, 2026, in Senate committee since June 23) noted below the table as pending, not law. Enforcement without a statute: the Florida AG’s newsroom lists no further release on the potassium-bromate investigation (releases checked through September 10, 2026); the Texas attorney general’s newsroom was read for this pass and supplies the Texas row now in that section (releases of June 18, 2025, August 13, 2025 and August 19, 2026); no other state’s AG newsroom was read, so this page does not assert that no other state has acted. Not re-checked this pass: California AB 418 and AB 2316/AB 1264 dates, the Red No. 3 deadlines, the BVO revocation, the voluntary dye phase-out and company pledges, the February 2026 labeling guidance, the Texas DSHS final rule and penalty figures, Louisiana SB 14’s school and menu provisions, and the Tennessee, Nebraska and Iowa rows’ substances and scope — carried forward from prior passes. Sites or endpoints that refused automated reads this pass: nysenate.gov, legiscan.com, lis.virginia.gov (JavaScript-only), governor.nh.gov, hhs.gov, ewg.org, the CourtListener docket HTML pages (the RECAP API was used instead), the akleg.gov bill-actions endpoint, and the gc.nh.gov legacy bill_status page. This entry combines two independent verification passes run the same day against separate source sets; where they differed, the reading with primary text behind it was taken. Five corrections come from the second pass. A Texas row was added to “Enforcement without a statute,” and that section no longer says the category opened in July 2026: the Texas attorney general reached it first, in 2025, over the marketing of dyed cereals — civil investigative demands resolved by a General Mills commitment announced June 18, 2025 and a signed Kellogg’s Assurance of Voluntary Compliance announced August 13, 2025, with the office announcing on August 19, 2026 that both had removed the dyes from K-12 cereals. The two matters are at different stages in the documents, which the row states. New York’s operative date was understated: § 8 of S1239-F/A1556-G takes effect “one year after it shall have become a law,” but the ban itself reaches conduct only “on or after the date one year after the effective date of this paragraph” (new Ag. & Mkts. L. § 199-a(5)(a)) — two years after signature on that reading, where this page had said one. Nebraska’s effective date is no longer unconfirmed: the slip law applies the restriction “on or after August 1, 2027.” Alaska SB 187 became law without the Governor’s signature (BASIS status line, June 18, 2026), which the row now says rather than “enacted.” Michigan HB 5069’s substances are now named (brominated vegetable oil, propylparaben, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, Yellow 6) rather than described as “certain substances” — from a practitioner round-up, not the Legislature’s page, which carries the history but not the list, and labelled as such on the page.
• September 2, 2026 — Federal-layer deadlines passed on schedule; Orange B revocation takes effect September 8. The August 24, 2026 window for objections to the Orange B final order and for comments on the Citrus Red No. 2 proposal has closed, and no stay, correction, or further FDA notice on either color had published in the Federal Register as of September 2 (checked via the FR API) — so the Orange B delisting takes effect September 8, 2026 as ordered, and Citrus Red No. 2 awaits a final order. The reopened BHT comment period closed August 31, 2026 with no further extension — detail on the GRAS Reform Tracker →. Tense on both federal rows updated accordingly. State layer: this page’s automated source watch (New York bill status, Fourth and Fifth Circuit dockets, state-AG enforcement news) reported no change through September 2 — S1239-F still passed-but-unsigned, no ruling in either appeal, and no state-AG additive action beyond Florida’s July 13 subpoena; those items were not independently re-read for this update and are carried forward on that basis.
• July 30, 2026 — Florida added as a new category: enforcement without a statute. On July 13, 2026, Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a civil investigative subpoena to General Mills, Inc. and General Mills Operations LLC under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, over products containing potassium bromate — an additive FDA still permits and that Florida has never legislated against (2025 bills to ban it died in committee without a hearing; the sponsor has said he intends to refile). The subpoena seeks records on bromated flour sold into the state, top Florida purchasers 2023–2026, disclosures to purchasers, safety research, and sales to Florida schools (pre-K through 12); no suit has been filed — the release frames the subpoena as part of a broader supply-chain investigation. Added as its own section because the mechanism — general consumer-protection authority rather than an additive statute — does not fit the statute, disclosure, or school-law tables. Also in this update: Iowa added to the school-meal table — HF 2676 (91st G.A., Acts ch. 1129), signed May 20, 2026, restricting six dyes plus potassium bromate and propylparaben in program meals, staff- or vendor-provided food, and on-campus sales during the school day at public school districts, charter and innovation zone schools, and nonpublic schools receiving state breakfast/lunch-program funds (new Iowa Code § 283A.6), applying to school years beginning on or after July 1, 2027. Substances, scope, and applicability verified against the enrolled Act (ch. 1129, 91st G.A., second session). The school-law state count was corrected from nine to eleven — the previous figure undercounted the states already listed. Federal layer updated: FDA’s notice reopening the BHT comment period published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2026 (Docket No. FDA-2026-N-2526), setting a deadline of August 31, 2026. The reopening was announced on July 10, but the notice took twenty days to appear — until it did, no new deadline legally existed, and this row said so. Re-verified with no change as of July 30: New York’s S1239-F remains passed-but-unsigned and has not been delivered to the Governor; no Fourth or Fifth Circuit ruling in the WV or TX appeals; no further Florida subpoenas and no comparable investigation opened by another state attorney general; the Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2 delistings and the January 2027 deadlines are unchanged.
• July 27, 2026 — Federal layer: FDA revoked the Orange B color-additive listing and proposed revoking Citrus Red No. 2. Announced July 22, 2026; both documents published in the Federal Register July 23. The Orange B final order removes 21 CFR § 74.250 (casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages) effective September 8, 2026, with objections and hearing requests due August 24, 2026 — FDA received 16 comments on the September 2025 proposal, all but one supportive, and none claiming continued use (last batch certified 1978). The Citrus Red No. 2 proposal would remove § 74.302 (skins of mature oranges, listed since 1959; last certified 2020); comments due August 24, 2026 to docket FDA-2026-N-6304. Both actions rest on abandonment, not safety — no reformulation impact; full analysis →. Also in this update: state layer re-verified with no change — New York’s S1239-F/A1556-G still awaits the Governor; the WV (4th Cir.) and TX (5th Cir.) injunctions remain in place with no new rulings; AB 418 and Red 3 deadlines unchanged.
• July 19, 2026 — New York added to the statewide-laws table. The Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act (S1239-F/A1556-G, Kavanagh/Kelles) passed the Senate March 23, 2026 (60–0) and the Assembly April 21, 2026 (106–32); it awaits action by the Governor and, per its own terms, takes effect one year after becoming law (that description was corrected on September 15, 2026 — see this pass’s entry). If signed, it bans Red 3, potassium bromate, and propylparaben statewide and creates the nation’s first state GRAS-disclosure mandate. Verified against the enrolled bill text and Senate releases. Also in this update: Louisiana correction — SB 57 (Act 735, signed June 1, 2026) delayed the SB 14 QR-code requirement from January 1, 2028 to December 31, 2028, narrowed it to listed ingredients FDA requires to be named on the food label, and removed acesulfame potassium from the QR and school lists (verified against the enrolled act and résumé digest); appellate dockets added (American Beverage Ass’n v. Paxton, 5th Cir. No. 26-50192, filed Mar. 5, 2026; both district cases stayed pending the mandates); WV/TX injunction statuses, AB 418, and Red 3 deadlines re-verified with no change. — FDA reopened the federal BHT comment period; ADA’s closed on schedule. On July 10, 2026, FDA announced it will reopen the Request for Information on butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) for an additional 30 days, citing stakeholder requests for more time; the new deadline will be set in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. The parallel azodicarbonamide (ADA) period was not reopened and closed on July 13, 2026, as originally scheduled. Both reviews run under FDA’s post-market assessment program — full coverage on the GRAS Reform Tracker →. Also in this update: Fourth Circuit appeal docketed as IACM v. Singh, No. 26-1085 (filed Jan. 22, 2026); Texas district-court docket added; BHA RFI dated to its Federal Register publication (Feb. 11, 2026); plain-English summary section added.
• July 12, 2026 — Accuracy pass. Corrected Virginia HB 1910 effective date (July 1, 2027, not “in force since July 1, 2025”); corrected Louisiana SB 14 preemption note (SB 14 does contain a broad preemption clause); filled Texas injunction date (Feb. 11, 2026) and recharacterized the DSHS final rule; resolved AB 2316 date to Dec. 31, 2027; clarified Utah dates; adjusted Mars dye-pledge characterization; noted Delaware as a Red 40–only ban.
• July 8, 2026 — Page launched. Verified against primary and practitioner sources: AB 418 (Jan. 1, 2027) and Red 3 (Jan. 15, 2027) deadlines confirmed; WV statewide ban enjoined Dec. 23, 2025 with school provisions in force; Texas SB 25 enforcement preliminarily enjoined in American Beverage Ass’n v. Paxton; Louisiana SB 14 added (QR disclosure, Jan. 1, 2028); school-law count updated to nine-plus states including 2026 additions (Nebraska, Tennessee expansion, Alabama).

Primary sources: FDA — FD&C Red No. 3 · California AB 418 (leginfo) · W. Va. HB 2354 / W. Va. Code § 16-7-2 · Texas SB 25 (Health & Safety Code §§ 431.0815–.0817) · FDA post-market assessment program · Florida AG — potassium bromate investigation (July 13, 2026) · Iowa HF 2676 (91st G.A.) · Iowa Acts ch. 1129 (enrolled) · New Hampshire SB 577 (2026), Chapter 270 · Alaska SB 187 (2026), Chapter 17 SLA 26 · Texas SB 314 (2025), Educ. Code § 33.9011 · Delaware SB 69 (2025), Ch. 27 · Louisiana Act 463 (2025), R.S. 17:197.2 · FDA — Orange B revocation, final order (91 FR, July 23, 2026)