2026 Food Regulatory Update: Ingredients in the Crosshairs

If the first few months of 2026 are any indication, food policy is not easing into the year—it's accelerating.

Federal regulators are advancing substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS) reform, post-market chemical reassessment, added sugar initiatives, and front-of-pack labeling. Meanwhile, states are testing aggressive ingredient restrictions, even as courts weigh constitutional limits. The result is a regulatory environment that is active, layered, and increasingly interconnected.

Here's where things stand.

Texas SB 25: Big Warning Law, Narrower Reach?

Texas has finalized regulations implementing SB 25, which requires a warning label on foods containing any of 44 specified ingredients if the product label is "developed or copyrighted" on or after January 1, 2027. The warning references foreign regulatory authorities and applies prospectively to newly created labels.

In February, however, a federal district court in American Beverage Association v. Paxton granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement against the plaintiff trade associations and their members. The case centers on First Amendment compelled-speech concerns and remains ongoing.

More significantly, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) stated in the rule's preamble that ingredients "considered generally recognized as safe or determined to be safe by FDA or USDA are not subject to the rule requirements." Because most listed ingredients are authorized under FDA food additive, color additive, or GRAS regulations, this interpretation could dramatically narrow the law's scope.

If DSHS's reading of federal preemption holds, the warning requirement may apply primarily to ingredients already banned or not authorized in the U.S.—meaning the practical impact of SB 25 could be far smaller than its initial headline suggested.

West Virginia's Synthetic Dye Ban: Blocked—For Now

West Virginia also moved aggressively in 2025, enacting HB 2354, which prohibits the sale of foods containing certain synthetic dyes—including Red 3 and 40, Yellow 5 and 6, Blue 1 and 2, and Green 3—beginning January 1, 2028. The statute framed these additives as "poisonous and injurious" and extended to both retail sales and school nutrition programs.

In December 2025, however, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the retail sales ban. The International Association of Color Manufacturers challenged the law as unconstitutionally vague, arguing that the "poisonous and injurious" standard and the nonexclusive additive list invited arbitrary enforcement. The court agreed on vagueness grounds, though it rejected equal protection and bill of attainder claims.

The injunction is temporary, and the case will proceed on the merits. Notably, the school nutrition component was not challenged and remains intact.

For industry, the West Virginia case underscores two themes: states remain willing to legislate beyond FDA action, but courts are scrutinizing drafting precision and constitutional limits closely.

GRAS Reform and Chemical Reassessment: Structural Pressure Builds

At the federal level, FDA's 2026 Human Foods Program priorities confirm that GRAS reform remains a top initiative. The agency intends to publish a proposed rule requiring submission of GRAS notices for all substances claimed to be GRAS—effectively replacing the longstanding voluntary notification pathway. The proposal is currently under OMB review.

FDA also continues post-market reassessment of existing food chemicals, including phthalates, propylparaben, BHA, and BHT. The agency plans to formalize a Systematic Post-Market Assessment framework and expand staffing dedicated to chemical review.

Adding to this uncertainty, and responding to the slow pace of federal policy change, several states have also introduced their own GRAS reform bills, including California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

What will become of these specific reforms is unclear, but what is clear is that legacy safety determinations are not immune from renewed evaluation, particularly in an environment of heightened public scrutiny.

Ultra-Processed Foods and the Kessler Petition: The Debate Goes Mainstream

The ultra-processed food debate has also moved from academic circles to center stage. Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler filed a citizen petition in August 2025 urging FDA to revoke the GRAS status of certain refined carbohydrates used in industrial processing, including corn syrups, maltodextrin, and extrusion-modified flours.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly stated that the administration intends to "act" on the petition, though whether that means granting, denying, or responding procedurally remains unclear. FDA has issued an interim response confirming the petition remains under review.

Meanwhile, FDA continues working with USDA on developing a federal definition of ultra-processed foods and evaluating front-of-pack labeling options. Direct regulation of ultra-processed foods does not appear imminent, but the policy conversation is clearly intensifying—and may influence labeling, enforcement priorities, and litigation narratives in the near term.

Once again, the states aren't waiting for the federal government to act. In 2025, 15 states introduced bills aimed at defining "ultra-processed foods." Most bills focused on prohibiting specific additives including common food dyes and preservatives. However, bills introduced in California and Pennsylvania focused on the function of substances in food rather than listing specific additives. To date, California and Arizona have passed laws defining and restricting ultra-processed foods, primarily targeting school meals.

Early Signals: YTD Food + Bev Litigation Trends

The Usual Suspects: Purity, Protein, and Performance

If 2026 feels familiar, that's because it largely is. Investigations and filings in the food, beverage, and dietary supplement space continue to target long-running themes: "natural" and "no artificial" claims, ingredient prominence disputes, protein content representations, and functional benefit messaging such as "supports immune health," "boosts energy," or "improves focus."

Unsurprisingly, theories of false "natural" and "no artificial" claims have particularly strong links between the volume of plaintiffs' attorneys advertising for potential cases and actual filings. In short, the core labeling attack playbook that we've seen in the recent past remains very much in circulation.

The New Player: Pricing Theories Gain Momentum

What does feel different in 2026 is the uptick in pricing and false discount investigations by plaintiffs' firms. This includes growing scrutiny of "Was/Now" comparisons, alleged fictitious reference prices, "compare at" savings claims, limited-time promotions, and subscription or auto-renewal disclosures.

Unlike traditional label-based cases, these matters do not turn on formulation or scientific substantiation. Instead, they focus on consumer perception, promotional mechanics, and compliance with state pricing statutes. That shift expands exposure beyond what the product contains or promises to how it is marketed and sold. Whether these investigations will materially translate into actual filings remains to be seen.

The Takeaway

• For stakeholders, the risk landscape so far this year is evolutionary, not revolutionary. The established theories—purity, ingredient integrity, and functional benefit claims—remain firmly entrenched. But pricing strategy is increasingly part of the litigation conversation.
• The practical implication: brands should be thinking not only about what the label says and what support sits behind it, but also about how discounts, comparisons, and promotions are structured. In 2026, plaintiffs are looking at both the product and the price tag.

Bottom Line

2026 may not bring immediate bans. But it is shaping the environment in which ingredient decisions, labeling claims, and marketing strategies will be judged. Companies that inventory exposure, organize substantiation, and build flexibility now will be better positioned when today's policy conversations turn into tomorrow's compliance requirements. In addition, expect that the ever-watchful plaintiffs' bar is checking not just the product claims but how the price is advertised as well.

+++

Kristi Wolff is a partner and Alli Condra is of counsel in the food + beverage group in the Washington, D.C. and Portland offices of DWT. For more insights, reach out to Kristi, Alli, or another member of our food + beverage team or sign up for our alerts.