Protecting families from contaminated food and water
All fields are required
Protecting families from contaminated food and water
Posted in Food Policy,Our Blog on July 3, 2025
You may be seeing “Not Safe for Human Consumption” labels on familiar food items soon. Much like many of the environmental and safety warnings on products sold in California, this new Texas law will likely impact food sold across the country.
Why is this new label necessary? What ingredients are included in this list? What products might we see this label on in the future? Will the law hold up in court?
The objective for this new “not safe for human consumption” Texas food label law is meant to align with the Make America Healthy Again movement.
But it goes much deeper than that.
The State Bill 25 (SB25) specifically calls out 44 dyes/additives/preservatives commonly found in the American food supply. Ingredients that are banned in Europe and more health-conscious countries.
Requiring such a bold statement on food packaging will hopefully push food manufacturers to remove these harmful chemicals from their products.
While some food giants like General Mills, Kraft Heinz, and Tyson Foods have already committed to removing dyes and certain additives from their products, we have a long way to go to catch up to food quality standards.
In addition to the synthetic food dyes being phased out at the federal government level under HHS authority, other dyes and additives will be on the list.
Ingredients requiring this label include:
As with any label, there are specific requirements that must be met.
First, the label must read: “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.”
There is a requirement for size. Food manufacturers cannot hide this statement in super fine print. According to the legislation, the font cannot be smaller than any other font on the package required by the FDA. It has to be placed on a prominent area of the package
Additionally, the label must have “sufficiently high contrast with the immediate background” so that the warning can be “seen and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.”
In other words, it must be obvious for consumers to see.
Additionally, the manufacturer or retailers’ Internet website must also include this information. The idea is full transparency. The consumer must be well informed.
There are a few exceptions to this legislation.
Some that make sense.
Others.
Not so much.
One of the more obvious exceptions to this rule is that the warning label is not required for products already not intended for human consumption.
For example, a preservative on this list may also be in paint, glue, or some other material.
If it is already a product not intended for human consumption, no label is necessary.
Food that is labeled, prepared, served, or sold in a restaurant is exempt from this “not safe for human consumption” labeling requirement.
This seems a bit strange.
The thought process behind this exemption could be that there are no labels on plates of food or poured beverages. It would be nearly impossible to perform this requirement or enforce it.
Food prepared or packaged at a retail establishment is also exempt from this labeling requirement.
These include grocery stores and other retail locations.
Under this exemption, food simply sold by the retailer with these ingredients must include the “not safe for human consumption” label. However, if they prepare or repackage a food item, the label is not necessary.
The legislation also excludes food already under regulation by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
Foods in this category include meat as well as some eggs and dairy products.
These products generally do not include such additives. If they did, they are already under strict regulatory oversight.
Products with an existing Surgeon General warning requirement are also exempt.
This includes drugs and dietary supplements as well as certain pesticide chemicals, soil or plant nutrients, or other agricultural chemical products.
The State of Texas has significant weight in the country. It is large, it is populated, and its residents buy a lot of consumer goods.
The state also tends to do their own thing.
A throwback from when it is a country, perhaps.
So, what happens if food manufacturers do not comply with these rules?
As part of Interstate Commerce laws, the Texas Attorney General can request an injunction to cease sales and impose severe civil penalties. The current legislation lays out an amount of $50,000 for each distinct food product found in violation.
Additionally, the state can demand reimbursement for investigating and enforcing these violations.
The only way to change Big Business is to hit them in the bank account.
This Texas label requirement technically applies to food sold in the state. However, with the thousands of products that are involved, it is unlikely that packaging will be specific to the Texas marketplace.
“When a state as big as Texas requires a warning, that will have an impact on the entire marketplace,” said Scott Faber of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. An organization known for supporting stronger food safety policies and concerns.
It is also unlikely that products will be reformulated and sold exclusively in Texas.
Some states may opt to exclude Texas in their distribution network and not sell their products in the state at all to avoid this massive packaging shift. If this happens, Texas may see fewer options on grocery store shelves.
As with any major change, especially those with significant financial impact, a certain amount of pushback is expected.
Some of those opposing the rule claim that these ingredients are, in fact, safe. Consumer Brands Association urged Governor Abbot to veto the legislation, stating “the ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously studied following an objective science- and risk-based evaluation process.” The groups calls the warning “inaccurate” and will confuse consumers.
Major food companies will likely take this requirement to court, where Federal law already declaring these additives as safe could preempt the Texas law.
It is unclear how the food industry will respond to this law. But many experts believe that no food company will place such a warning on their products.
If required, how soon could we expect to see these labels?
Companies have a bit of time.
The legislation applies to products “developed or copyrighted” on or after January 1, 2027. Giving companies an initial grace period.
However, existing products will not be required to bare the label. That is until they change the product in any way.
So, if Ms. Baird’s bread is ok with their formula and packaging, they can continue to use bleached flour without the label. As long as they change nothing.
If products using certain preservatives on the list do not change their formulation, they can continue to sell in Texas without the label. As long a they change nothing.
It is unlikely that Texans, or other Americans, will see a “not safe for human consumption” label any time soon.
But progress, however small, is still progress.
If you’d like to know more about food safety topics in the news, like “New Texas Law Requires ‘Not Safe for Human Consumption’ Label on Food with Certain Ingredients,” check out the Make Food Safe Blog. We regularly update trending topics, foodborne infections in the news, recalls, and more! Stay tuned for quality information to help keep your family safe, while The Lange Law Firm, PLLC strives to Make Food Safe!
By: Heather Van Tassell (contributing writer, non-lawyer)