Trade groups say proposed labels are misleading, violate First AmendmentTexas law requires new warnings for 44 ingredients deemed unsafe by other countries<\/p>\n
Dec 8 (Reuters) – Food industry trade groups have sued Texas over a new state law that requires warning labels for ingredients like food dyes and preservatives, saying that the new labels violate companies\u2019 free speech rights and risk confusing customers.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs, which include the American Beverage Association and Food Industry Association, asked a federal judge on Friday to block a part of Texas Senate Bill 25, also known as \u201cMake Texas Healthy Again,\u201d which was signed into law in June.<\/p>\n
Sign up here.<\/a><\/p>\n Section 9 of the law requires food manufacturers to include warning labels on products that include 44 listed ingredients, including artificial additives, dyes and chemicals, informing customers that governments in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom have labeled the ingredients as \u201cnot recommended for human consumption.\u201d<\/p>\n The food industry groups argue that the proposed warning labels, which will be required starting in January 2027, are \u201cfalse and misleading.\u201d The foreign governments cited in the Texas labeling law do not categorically describe the listed ingredients as “not recommended for human consumption,” and they allow many of them to be used in food, according to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n \u201cThe listed ingredients have been used safely in American foods and beverages for decades,\u201d the groups said in their complaint. \u201cSection 9\u2019s warning requirement compels businesses to tell Texas consumers that the enumerated ingredients are \u201cnot recommended for human consumption\u201d abroad \u2014 even when that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n The Texas labeling requirement violates the U.S. Constitution\u2019s First Amendment free speech protections, as well as the Commerce Clause by giving one state undue influence over interstate commerce, and it is pre-empted by federal regulations, according to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n Most of the listed ingredients have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and some are already subject to federal labeling requirements. A few \u2014 including certain red dyes and synthetic trans fatty acids \u2014 have already been banned by the FDA, according to the lawsuit. The labeling requirement will increase costs for the food industry well before the January 2027 start date, because companies will have to either change their ingredients completely, or spend money to redesign packaging, adjust supply chains, and implement new compliance systems.<\/p>\n The law, inspired by the Trump administration\u2019s “Make America Healthy Again” policies, also mandates physical education classes for young children, requires nutrition and wellness curricula for high-school students, and creates a Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee.<\/p>\n The law\u2019s sponsor, Republican state senator Lois Kolkhorst, said in June that the law was meant to help families make better choices.<\/p>\n \u201cWith this legislation, I am hopeful that food manufacturers will remove the harmful ingredients and choose not to have to label their products,\u201d Kolkhorst said in a June press release.<\/p>\n The case is American Beverage Association et al v. Paxton, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 25-cv-00566<\/p>\n For the plaintiffs: Allyson Ho, Benjamin Wilson and Prerak Shah of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP<\/p>\n Read more:<\/p>\n MAHA report on US children’s health targets food and drug marketing<\/a>FDA proposes putting nutrition labels on the front of packaged foods in health push<\/a>US health agencies delay decision on definition of ‘healthy’ on food labels<\/a><\/p>\n Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab<\/a><\/p>\n