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.
• 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 and awaits action by the Governor.

The statewide laws

The disclosure laws

School Meal Laws

School-restriction laws are the largest category — 11 bills enacted across eight states in 2025 alone, with more added in 2026.

Enforcement without a statute

A fourth category opened in July 2026, and it does not fit the tables above: a state acting on an additive it never legislated against.

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, though, it requires no bill, no session, and no effective date — and any of the other 49 attorneys general could copy it. 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. 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), and the district court stayed its proceedings on February 17, 2026 pending the appellate mandate. 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), and the district case was stayed on April 9, 2026 pending the mandate. Neither circuit had ruled as of July 30, 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; 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.

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 at least eleven states — West Virginia already in force (Virginia’s law is enacted but does not take effect until July 1, 2027), with Utah, Arizona, California, Iowa, 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 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. 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)