As regulatory scrutiny intensifies across the nation, food companies in Texas must take a closer look at new and evolving labeling laws. Recent changes at the federal level, paired with the introduction of Texas Senate Bill 25 (SB 25), are creating a layered and increasingly complex landscape for food manufacturers, retailers, and suppliers. Understanding the intersection of federal law and Texas law food labeling requirements is now a necessity—not a choice.
At Ritter Spencer Cheng, our team helps clients stay compliant with these new developments. From navigating FDA regulations to decoding the implications of SB 25 Texas bill, we help businesses stay informed, prepared, and protected.
Let’s start with the basics: What does SB 25 Texas bill mean for Texas food companies?
Understanding Texas Food Labeling Law and SB 25
The recently proposed SB 25 Texas bill, also known as the Texas food warning bill, seeks to introduce strict new labeling guidelines for products intended for human consumption. The bill requires products that contain certain ingredients or additives—such as partially hydrogenated oil or artificial dyes—to feature a prominent warning label. These labels must inform consumers about the potential health effects of specific ingredients, many of which are found in processed foods and ultra processed foods.
Texas Senate Bill 25 (SB25) also proposes the creation of a Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, tasked with evaluating food ingredients and recommending disclosures. The committee would work alongside the appropriate authority, such as the Texas Department of State Health Services, to guide how risk is communicated on packaging and labeling.
The bill has sparked concern among the food industry, particularly over its potential to create legal risks due to inconsistencies with federal law and FDA standards. If passed, the legislation could force businesses to quickly reassess product formulas, packaging strategies, and risk management practices.
In short, SB 25 food labeling measures signal a major shift in food labeling regulations Texas businesses must now prepare for.
What Foods Are Affected by the New Law?
Under SB 25, the law applies to food products “recommended for human consumption,” which casts a wide net over a broad range of packaged and processed goods. While the bill does not ban any specific products outright, it creates disclosure obligations for ingredients flagged as risky or unhealthy.
Products that may be affected include:
- Ultra processed foods with artificial flavorings and additives
- Items made with partially hydrogenated oils, a known source of trans fats
- Foods containing bleached flour, artificial sweeteners, or synthetic dyes
These ingredients are common in snacks, frozen meals, baked goods, and beverages. If passed, manufacturers will be required to include a clear disclosure statement on packaging that could read, for example: “Warning: This product contains ingredients known to increase the risk of chronic disease.”
This new requirement not only places pressure on food companies to reformulate or relabel products—it may also influence how consumers perceive safety and quality. With many ingredients already banned or restricted in countries like Canada, the European Union, and Australia, this legislation appears to follow global trends in regulating ultra processed foods and increasing transparency in food labeling. These changes may also impact the broader food supply, as manufacturers adjust formulations to avoid warning labels and sourcing challenges increase.
New Labeling Requirements and Disclosure Obligations
If passed, SB 25 would impose new labeling requirements on packaged food products that include flagged ingredients. These products would be required to carry both a labeling statement relating to ingredients and a warning label disclosing health risks, even if the ingredients are otherwise permitted under federal law.
Disclosure Statement Requirements
The proposed disclosure statement must be clearly visible on the front of the package and include language such as “Warning: This product contains food additives known to increase the risk of chronic disease.” These rules are designed to improve transparency, but they also raise serious questions about consumer confusion, especially when FDA-approved ingredients are flagged under Texas law.
Legal and Regulatory Tensions
The tension between state rulemaking and federal law is a major concern. The FDA already regulates labeling at the national level, and critics argue that additional state-specific warning label requirements may confuse consumers and complicate compliance for food companies operating in multiple jurisdictions. This conflict creates a high potential for legal risks and may prompt challenges based on federal preemption. Without a clear risk based evaluation process, businesses may struggle to determine which ingredients are subject to SB 25 disclosures.
Global Comparison
Supporters of SB 25 point to labeling laws in the European Union, Canada, and Australia, where food labeling includes prominent warnings about additives, fats, and artificial ingredients. However, those countries use well-established frameworks, while Texas is proposing a new regulatory layer without federal alignment—raising concerns about enforceability, fairness, and clarity.
Impacts on Food Supply and Enforcement Oversight
As labeling laws evolve, ripple effects across the food supply chain are inevitable. Suppliers, distributors, and packaging facilities will need to coordinate closely to meet new packaging and warning label expectations. This also raises questions about which appropriate authority will monitor compliance and how enforcement will be handled. The role of the Texas Attorney General in upholding these standards and ensuring consistent application across counties may become increasingly important.
Proponents argue that these updates support human health by pushing for greater transparency and discouraging the use of harmful food additives in commonly consumed items. However, clarity in enforcement remains essential to avoid unnecessary disruptions across the food industry.
How SB 25 Creates Legal Risks for Food Companies
While the goals of SB 25 are centered on consumer health and safety, the bill introduces significant legal risks for food manufacturers and distributors. The greatest concern is federal preemption, which occurs when state law conflicts with established FDA regulations. Companies following federal labeling laws may still face state enforcement or civil lawsuits under SB 25, creating a challenging legal dilemma.
Additionally, the bill’s broad and sometimes vague standards could open the door for inconsistent enforcement. Terms like “risk of chronic disease” or “artificial ingredient” may be subject to interpretation, especially without guidance from an appropriate authority. This ambiguity can lead to legal uncertainty and increased exposure to civil penalties.
There is also potential for increased liability tied to chronic health issues and other chronic health issues. If consumers allege that a company failed to warn about certain ingredients, even if those ingredients are FDA-approved, the company may face costly litigation. For businesses that sell dietary supplements or operate as a retail establishment, this risk extends to how products are marketed and shelved.
Ultimately, while the intent behind SB 25 may be consumer protection, the legal implications for food companies in Texas are far-reaching and potentially disruptive.
What Should Food Manufacturers and Texas Food Companies Do Next?
To reduce risk and remain compliant with both federal law and emerging Texas regulations, food manufacturers and food companies should take the following steps:
1. Conduct a Label Review
Evaluate all current food product labels and packaging for compliance with FDA requirements and anticipated SB 25 mandates. This includes reviewing any labeling statement relating to food additives, artificial dyes, or other flagged substances.
2. Prepare for Dual Compliance
Develop internal protocols that address both state and federal labeling requirements. Dual compliance strategies will help companies minimize exposure to penalties or conflicting enforcement actions. Our food and beverage attorneys in Dallas work directly with clients on these integrated strategies.
3. Monitor Legislative Changes
Track updates from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Texas Attorney General, and relevant inspection service agencies to stay ahead of regulatory shifts. Future updates or clarifications may significantly impact compliance obligations.
4. Seek Legal Guidance
Work with experienced counsel who understands both state-specific mandates and federal compliance expectations. Heather Bustos, an experienced FDA Compliance attorney at Ritter Spencer Cheng, provides regulatory guidance that helps food companies proactively manage risk.
At Ritter Spencer Cheng, we assist food manufacturers, dietary supplement companies, and others across the food industry in evaluating risk, interpreting new statutes, and preparing customized compliance strategies. We help protect human health by advising businesses on safer labeling, clearer packaging, and more accurate disclosures.
Get Legal Support from a Texas Food Labeling Law Firm
If your Texas-based food business needs help navigating Texas law food labeling requirements, the SB 25 Texas bill, or aligning with new food labeling regulations Texas has proposed, contact Ritter Spencer Cheng for strategic, compliance-driven counsel.
