State Food Additive & Dye Law Tracker
The state food additive laws in plain English
- 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 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.
The statewide laws
| State | Law | Substances | Effective | Status (as of July 13, 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | AB 418 — California Food Safety Act (2023) | Red 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben — all food sold in-state (titanium dioxide was dropped by Senate amendment before passage) | January 1, 2027 | In effect on schedule. Penalties up to $5,000 (first violation) / $10,000 (subsequent); enforced by the AG, city attorneys, county counsel, or DAs. |
| West Virginia | HB 2354 (2025) | Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, plus BHA and propylparaben — deemed “adulterated” statewide | January 1, 2028 | Statewide provisions preliminarily enjoined (Dec. 23, 2025, S.D. W.Va., Judge Berger — “poisonous and injurious” standard unconstitutionally vague) in IACM v. Singh, No. 2:25-cv-00588; equal-protection and bill-of-attainder theories rejected. School provisions (below) unaffected and in force. The state’s appeal is docketed at the Fourth Circuit (IACM v. Singh, No. 26-1085, filed Jan. 22, 2026); a legislative fix died in the 2026 session. |
The disclosure laws
| State | Law | Mechanism | Effective | Status (as of July 13, 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | SB 25 (2025) | Warning label (“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”) on foods containing any of 44 listed ingredients | Labels developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027 | Enforcement preliminarily enjoined (Feb. 11, 2026) against the four plaintiff trade associations and their members in American Beverage Ass’n v. Paxton (W.D. Tex., No. 6:25-cv-00566) on First Amendment compelled-speech grounds; the AG has appealed. Separately, DSHS’s final rule (Feb. 20, 2026) dropped the proposed explicit preemption provision and adopted a broad exemption for FDA-approved/GRAS ingredients — though conflicting preamble language on certified colors leaves the scope contested. Penalties up to $50,000/day via the Texas AG; no private right of action. |
| Louisiana | SB 14 (2025) | QR code on packaging linking to a manufacturer-site ingredient notice, for foods containing any of 44 listed ingredients; also bans 15 additives in state-funded school meals and requires seed-oil disclosure on restaurant menus | QR-code requirement: January 1, 2028 | On schedule. SB 14 contains a federal-preemption clause that is broader than Texas’s (triggered by any federal action “at least equivalent or more restrictive”); unlike Texas, it has no grandfather clause for pre-existing labels. |
School Meal Laws
School-restriction laws are the largest category — 11 bills enacted across eight states in 2025 alone, with more added in 2026.
| State | Law | Scope | Effective |
|---|---|---|---|
| West Virginia | HB 2354 (school provisions) | 7 dyes in school nutrition programs | In force since August 1, 2025 — the first in the nation; not covered by the injunction |
| Virginia | SB 1289 (2025) | 7 dyes in public school meals | Effective July 1, 2027 (signed March 21, 2025 — not yet in force) |
| Utah | HB 402 (2025) | 7 dyes + potassium bromate + propylparaben in public schools (exemptions incl. districts ≤5,500 students) | Statute effective May 7, 2025; school restriction applies from the 2026–27 school year |
| Arizona | HB 2164 — Arizona Healthy Schools Act (2025) | “Ultraprocessed food” defined by 11 additives (dyes, potassium bromate, propylparaben, titanium dioxide, BVO) in federally funded schools | 2026–27 school year |
| California | AB 2316 (2024) | 6 dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5/6, Blue 1/2, Green 3) in public schools | December 31, 2027 |
| California | Real Food, Healthy Kids Act — AB 1264 (Oct. 8, 2025) | Statutory “ultraprocessed foods” phase-out in schools | CDPH regulations by June 1, 2028; phase-out 2029–30 through 2035–36 school years |
| Others enacted | Louisiana (SB 14 school provisions), Tennessee (2025 Red 40 ban, expanded to all synthetic dyes by SB 2423, signed 2026, eff. SY 2027–28), Delaware (SB 69 — Red 40 only), Nebraska (LB 940, 2026), Alabama (2025 law eff. June 1, 2026; 2026 tightening eff. October 1, 2026) | Dyes and/or additives in school meals (varies by state) | Phasing in June 2026 – SY 2027–28 (by state) |
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.
| Federal action | What it does | Key date |
|---|---|---|
| Red No. 3 revocation (Jan. 15, 2025 order) | Authorization revoked under the Delaney Clause; after the deadline, products with newly manufactured Red 3 are adulterated | Food: January 15, 2027; ingested drugs: January 18, 2028 |
| BVO revocation (July 2024) | First food-additive revocation in decades; compliance date passed August 2025 | Done — federal layer now matches AB 418’s BVO row |
| Voluntary dye phase-out (announced April 22, 2025) | HHS/FDA push to remove the six remaining petroleum-based dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5/6, Blue 1/2, Green 3) by end of 2026 — voluntary: no rulemaking has been initiated, the dyes remain federally legal, and adherence rests on company pledges (Kraft Heinz, General Mills, WK Kellogg, Mondelez among them; Mars committed only to dye-free versions of select products) | End of 2026 (aspirational) |
| “No artificial colors” labeling guidance (Feb. 5, 2026) | Enforcement discretion allowing the claim on products that dropped petroleum-based dyes but use natural-source colors — a reformulation incentive | In effect |
| Post-market assessment program (finalized May 12, 2026) | Systematic reassessment channel for additives already in the food supply; BHA (RFI published Feb. 11, 2026), BHT, and ADA reviews underway | BHT comment period reopened July 10, 2026 for 30 more days (new deadline pending an FR notice); ADA closed July 13, 2026 as scheduled — full coverage on the GRAS Reform Tracker → |
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. 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. 6, 2025), 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 now before the Fourth Circuit (No. 26-1085, filed Jan. 22, 2026). 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 has appealed. 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; 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.
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.
Which states restrict dyes in schools? Laws are enacted in at least nine states — West Virginia already in force (Virginia’s law is enacted but does not take effect until July 1, 2027), with Utah, Arizona, California, Louisiana, Tennessee, Delaware, Nebraska, and Alabama phasing in across 2026–2027.
How fast is this moving? Over 140 additive bills ran across 38 states in 2025, and 2026 sessions have already added new laws (Nebraska, Tennessee’s expansion, Alabama’s tightening). This page logs each enactment as it lands.
Changelog
- July 13, 2026 — 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
Get notified when major changes occur.