A new Texas law requires warning labels on foods containing certain dyes and additives. Starting in 2027, labels must state that the ingredients are “not recommended for human consumption” in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the UK. This legislation, signed by Governor Greg Abbott, could have a significant impact on the national food supply. It gives food companies a few choices: they can either reformulate their products, add the new labels, remove the items from Texas shelves, or challenge the law in court.
The new law, however, has some issues. A review of the legislation reveals that nearly a dozen of the targeted additives are actually authorized in the regions it cites, or are already restricted in the US. Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, commented on the legislation, stating, “I don’t know how the list of chemicals was constructed.” He added, “Warnings have to be accurate in order to be legal.” The legislation’s inaccuracies could lead to potential legal challenges. Inquiries to the office of the bill’s author, Republican state Senator Lois Kolkhorst, were not immediately returned.
The legislation targets over 40 dyes and additives, but some of these are allowed in all four of the named regions. Examples include Blue Dye No 1, BHA, BHT, and potassium aluminum sulfate. On the other hand, three of the ingredients on the list, partially hydrogenated oils, Red Dye No 4, and Red Dye No 3, are not approved or have been banned in food by US regulators. Additionally, the law contains loopholes. For instance, Melanie Benesh, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group, pointed out that a federal regulation for the food additive azodicarbonamide (ADA) likely exempts it from the state labeling law. She concluded, “The law, as passed, may not end up having the impact that legislators intended.”
Nutrition experts generally support the idea of addressing food additives. Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, described the law as a “big win for Texas consumers and consumers overall.” He sees it as a reflection of states that “not wanting to wait for the federal government to act.” He notes that research shows food label warnings can encourage healthier consumer choices and prompt the food industry to remove concerning ingredients. The Texas law also creates a state nutrition advisory committee, enhances nutrition education requirements, and mandates nutrition courses for college students and medical professionals.
This law is part of a broader trend of states taking action on food additives. In 2023, California became the first state to ban some chemicals and dyes from foods, and other states like Arkansas and West Virginia have also passed similar laws. Christina Roberto, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, observed that “it’s a pretty dizzying time to be watching what’s happening, because usually policies that are not very industry friendly are opposed, particularly in red states.” She attributed this to the “RFK and the MAHA movement,” which she believes has “really turned things upside-down in some ways.”
At the federal level, US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary have pledged to remove artificial dyes from foods. They have also pressured the food industry to take voluntary action, and some large food manufacturers have complied. Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes, citing studies that suggest they may cause neurobehavioral issues, such as hyperactivity and attention problems, in some children. The FDA has previously stated that approved dyes are safe and that “the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives.”
We at SnackSafely.com view the changes with optimism and concern. While clearing the food supply of synthetic additives would be a boon for public health, we worry that substitutes may make it more difficult for the allergic community to find products that are safe for their consumption.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.
- Texas will put warning labels on some foods, but its additives list has inaccuracies — Associated Press
- Texas to introduce food-additive warning labels — Just Food
- Senate Bill 25 — Legiscan
Snacking safely is not hard. Just eat whole foods, not processed foods. Fruit, veggies, whole grain breads, cottage cheese (check the list of ingrediants), leftovers from a previously cooked meal and plain yogurt are easy options. People need to take a close look at why they think they need snack food a special category of food much of which is not healthy.
These are easy options provided you aren’t coping with a food allergy or celiac disease. Having dietary restrictions makes the whole process significantly more difficult, and swapping out a synthetic additive that you can tolerate for a natural substitute that you can’t complicates matters even more.
Christine,
In your comment you are assuming that everyone can eat dairy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Due to multiple life-threatening (anaphylactic) food allergies, some of which are in the top 9 and some of which aren’t, this is not the case for my son. Unless you’ve lived it, you can’t know just how difficult and time-consuming it is to have to call every food manufacturer (even whole foods like grains/flour are processed on shared equipment) and cook everything from scratch. You can’t imagine the creativity it takes to work with significant restrictions and still make sure that you are providing a balanced diet with all the necessary vitamins, minerals, and macronutrients a growing kids needs. I could attempt to explain and give details, but I don’t think anyone would really want to read it. Let it suffice to say that when I find “processed” foods that are safe (such as dried pasta, or bread, or yes, snack foods like potato chips or cookies), I buy them.
People with food allergies deserve to have variety in their diets. Kids with food allergies deserve to have safe snacks that don’t make them feel even more “different” than they already do. As a general rule, I’m all for removing harmful dyes and additives from our foods. What I’m personally concerned about, however, is what will be added in their place. Many “natural” dyes, flavors, and additives that are made from fruits and vegetables are harmful for my child due to his food allergies. If manufacturers use these “natural” alternatives, there will be even fewer safe choices for my family. Dave said it well: “swapping out a synthetic additive that you can tolerate for a natural substitute that you can’t complicates matters even more.”
Something else to think about: dyes, artificial flavors, and preservatives aren’t just in foods, they are often in children’s medicines. So these legislative changes may also determine whether I have access to medicine that is safe for my family.