State-Led Food Transparency: Texas and Louisiana Lead the Charge

Two southern states are taking bold steps to change the way they approach food labeling—and they’re not mincing words.  In a growing movement aligned with the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, Texas and Louisiana have each passed sweeping new laws requiring clearer warnings and disclosures for food additives and seed oils.

Together, these laws signal a significant shift in how state governments may begin to challenge the status quo on food transparency, consumer rights, and ingredient safety.  Here’s what industry needs to know.

Texas Goes BIG on Food Warnings

Beginning on January 1, 2027, Texans may notice new warning labels on some food products sold in their fair state.  On June 22, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law SB 25—nicknamed the “Make Texas Healthy Again” law—requiring, among other things, that any food or beverage containing one of 44 specified “ingredients” must carry a prominent warning label if FDA “requires the ingredient to be named on a food label.”  The law applies to all foods, even if produced outside of the state.  This labeling requirement will apply to packages “developed or copyrighted” from January 1, 2027 onward.

The labels of such products must clearly state:

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.

Thus, the warning requirement is predicated on the regulatory status of the listed substances in the foreign jurisdictions of Australia, Canada, the European Union (EU), or the United Kingdom.

The warning must “be placed in a prominent and reasonably visible location” and “have sufficiently high contrast with the immediate background to ensure the warning is likely to be seen and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.”  It also must be provided on manufacturers and retailers’ websites that offer the product for sale, or otherwise communicated to consumers.

What Made the List?

The law covers 44 substances—from azodicarbonamide (ADA) to bleached flour, titanium dioxide, and synthetic dyes like yellow 5 and 6 and red 3, 4, and 40.  The law includes a federal preemption clause for laws and regulations promulgated by FDA or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that:  (1) prohibit the use of the ingredient; (2) impose conditions on the use of the ingredient, including requiring a warning or disclosure statement; or (3) determine that the ingredient or class of ingredients are safe for human consumption.  Some of the substances included on the list—such as partially hydrogenated oils and red 3—are already prohibited in the United States.  Others, such as yellow 5, are already the subject of regulations that impose conditions on their use.  It is not clear to us what exactly the drafters of the law had in mind, but the preemption provision seems to significantly reduce the possible impact of this law.

Louisiana Follows Suit—with a Twist

Just days earlier, on June 20, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed SB 14 into law, delivering what may be an even more comprehensive MAHA-aligned measure.  The Louisiana law completely bans certain food and color additives from school meals, requires a warning for certain food ingredients for foods sold in the state, and becomes the first law in the nation to require restaurant disclosures of seed oil use.

Major Elements of the Louisiana Law:

• Bans 15 additives in public school, or nonpublic schools receiving state funds, meals (food and beverage) starting in the 2027–2028 school year, including:
  • Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and saccharin.
  • Preservatives such as BHA and BHT.
  • Synthetic dyes.
• Requires food manufacturers to provide QR codes that will redirect consumers to a webpage that must include a disclosure about the presence of 44 additives.  The disclosure must be accompanied by the statement:  “NOTICE: This product contains [insert ingredient here].  For more information about this ingredient, including FDA approvals, click HERE.”  The QR codes and digital disclosures must be included on the outer product packaging by January 1, 2028.  Notably, this is less of a “warning” than the Texas law’s provision.  Another notable difference between the Louisiana and Texas law is that the Louisiana bill does not include a preemption provision.
• Requires seed oil disclosures be displayed on restaurant menus or in-store signage for items prepared with oils such as canola, soybean, sunflower, or cottonseed.

While the Louisiana law stops short of requiring on-package printed warnings like Texas, its QR-code-based digital notice system aims to balance transparency with practicality.  The approach, lawmakers say, is modeled on international labeling practices but tailored for local implementation.

Industry Implications

It remains to be seen how industry will respond to the Texas and Louisiana laws.  Reformulation to avoid the warning requirements might seem the least “painful.”  However, if that is not an option, will there be two warnings/disclosures on the label?  And what if a third state requires yet another warning/disclosure?  The options are bad enough that the possibility of a judicial challenge to one or both of the laws cannot be excluded.

A Growing MAHA Movement

Both laws appear to be part of a broader effort to advance the MAHA agenda.  The Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal opponent of seed oils and food additives, praised the state laws as essential tools to fight chronic disease and reduce national healthcare costs.  Pat McMath, a Louisiana Senator, emphasized that the Louisiana bill would give federal regulators and reform-minded lawmakers the leverage to “force the food companies to the table to change and alter the ingredients that are all making us sick.”

Governor Landry echoed this sentiment, citing Louisiana’s dismal health rankings and declaring that the new law marked “the beginning of a healthy transformation for Louisiana.”  See, e.g., link.

A Sign of Things to Come?

This may foreshadow future legislative action at the state level. The size of Louisiana and Texas’s markets, as well as their economic influence, could and likely will have ripple effects throughout the country.

With Virginia, West Virginia (see our previous blog post here), Utah, and Arizona having adopted similar, though narrower, measures—especially targeting school meals—Texas and Louisiana are shaping what may become a template for future state (and possibly federal) action.

We will monitor the Texas and Louisiana laws’ implementation, enforcement, and broader impact on national food-labeling practices.