Texas has finalized its rule implementing SB 25’s ingredient warning label requirement. Although enforcement is currently blocked by a federal court injunction, food manufacturers selling in Texas must prepare for potential compliance by January 1, 2027. The rule raises significant First Amendment and federal preemption questions that could reshape state-level food labeling authority nationwide.
Texas is advancing one of the most closely watched state food-labeling laws in the country. In February 2026, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) adopted the final rule implementing Senate Bill 25 (SB 25), the state’s new ingredient warning labeling law.
Even with enforcement temporarily paused, the regulatory structure is now in place. Companies distributing food products in Texas need a clear understanding of both the compliance framework and the litigation landscape.
What Exactly Must Appear on a Texas-Compliant Label?
SB 25 requires certain packaged foods sold in Texas to display the following warning if they contain any of 44 listed ingredients:
“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.”
The warning must be:
- Conspicuous
- Clearly legible with sufficient font size and contrast
- Prominently placed on the label
The requirement applies to labels developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027.
Notably, the warning does not declare the ingredient unsafe. Instead, it references foreign regulatory treatment. That distinction is central to the constitutional arguments now before the federal court.
Which Products Trigger the Warning Requirement?
The statute applies broadly to packaged food intended for human consumption sold in Texas, regardless of where it is manufactured.
Covered ingredients include:
- Synthetic color additives (e.g., Red 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1)
- Preservatives such as BHA and BHT
- Bleached flour
- Potassium bromate
- Additional additives that face restrictions in certain foreign jurisdictions
Statutory Exemptions
SB 25 excludes:
- USDA-regulated meat and poultry products
- Dietary supplements
- Alcoholic beverages
- Restaurant and retail-prepared foods
- Products where federal law directly governs ingredient labeling
The federal-law carveout is likely to be pivotal in the ongoing litigation.
What Did the February 2026 Rule Clarify Beyond the Statute?
The final rule, codified in 25 TAC Chapter 229, Subchapter II, provides operational detail that many summaries have overlooked.
The rule clarifies:
- Placement and visibility standards
- Application to online product listings and digital commerce
- Enforcement authority of DSHS and the Texas Attorney General
- Administrative penalty procedures
The inclusion of online listings is particularly significant. Companies may need to update retailer websites, distributor portals, and marketplace listings—not just packaging.
Additionally, the rule confirms that out-of-state manufacturers are subject to enforcement if their products are sold in Texas. This reinforces the interstate commerce implications for national brands that rely on uniform packaging.
Where Does the Federal Court Challenge Stand?
Enforcement is currently blocked.
In February 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the warning requirement.
Trade associations argue that SB 25:
- Compels speech in violation of the First Amendment
- May mislead consumers because many covered ingredients are FDA-approved
- Is preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
The court determined plaintiffs are likely to succeed on at least some constitutional claims and temporarily barred enforcement.
This is not a final ruling. The injunction preserves the status quo while litigation proceeds.
SB 25’s Compliance Clock: Key Dates Companies Must Track
Even with the injunction, the statutory timeline remains critical.
📆 Compliance Timeline & What Businesses Should Know
| Milestone | Date |
| SB 25 Signed Into Law | June 22, 2025 |
| Law Effective | September 1, 2025 |
| Final Rule Published | February 20, 2026 |
| Label Compliance Trigger | January 1, 2027 |
The trigger applies to labels developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027.
That distinction matters. Packaging inventory produced before the deadline may still circulate in commerce. Companies should evaluate:
- Inventory turnover rates
- Packaging redesign lead times
- Contract manufacturing timelines
- Private-label allocation of labeling responsibility
This operational layer has received little attention in mainstream coverage but carries significant financial exposure if enforcement resumes.
How SB 25 Tests the Limits of Federal Preemption
The core legal issue is whether Texas can mandate a warning that differs from federal labeling standards.
Under the FDCA and NLEA, states are restricted from imposing labeling requirements that are “not identical” to federal law in certain regulated areas.
SB 25 attempts to navigate around preemption by referencing foreign regulatory positions rather than directly contradicting FDA determinations. Whether that strategy withstands judicial scrutiny remains uncertain.
If upheld, SB 25 could open the door for other states to craft similar foreign-standard-based warning laws. If struck down, it may reinforce federal dominance in ingredient labeling regulation.
Strategic Planning in a Split-Enforcement Environment
The injunction creates a planning dilemma. Companies cannot assume the law will disappear, but they also cannot justify immediate nationwide packaging changes without clarity.
Practical risk-management steps include:
- Conducting a full ingredient audit against the SB 25 list.
- Assessing reformulation feasibility for high-volume SKUs.
- Modeling Texas-specific versus nationwide labeling scenarios.
- Reviewing e-commerce compliance exposure.
- Revisiting retailer and co-manufacturer indemnity provisions.
Retailers may seek to shift compliance responsibility contractually. Early review of supply agreements can prevent downstream disputes.
Texas as a De Facto National Labeling Influencer
Texas represents one of the largest consumer markets in the United States. A state-specific labeling requirement in Texas can effectively pressure national brands to adopt uniform packaging across all states.
That commercial reality is part of why SB 25 carries implications far beyond Texas.
The outcome of this litigation will influence:
- The scope of state authority in food labeling
- The application of compelled-speech doctrine to consumer products
- The viability of foreign-regulatory-reference warning frameworks
This is not simply an additive disclosure debate. It is a structural test of federal-state balance in food regulation.
Juris Law Group’s Regulatory Perspective
Juris Law Group, P.C. advises food, beverage, and CPG companies on labeling compliance, federal preemption strategy, recall risk, and regulatory enforcement defense.
State-level labeling initiatives are accelerating. Early legal review of packaging strategy, contractual allocation of risk, and federal preemption analysis can prevent costly midstream changes.
Companies distributing in Texas should assess exposure now rather than waiting for a final court ruling.
