Search results for: senate bill passed

  • Earlier this year a bipartisan group of California lawmakers introduced AB 1264, which directs the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to define “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs) and phase out identified prohibited foods from school meals beginning January 1, 2028. The bill also targets certain additives from being used in schools, including Red 40.  The bill broadly defines UPFs as foods that contain one or more of certain functional ingredients, such as colorants, flavorings, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and thickening agents.
  • If passed, beginning July 1, 2035, the bill would prohibit schools from offering meals that include “particularly harmful ultra-processed foods,” and from “selling food or beverages . . . containing those particularly harmful ultra-processed foods,” except for food items sold as part of a school fundraising event.
  • AB 1264 would also require vendors to report the total quantity of food product sold to schools and identify whether the product is “particularly harmful.” OEHHA must submit a report to the California legislature with “recommendations for state and local legislative actions that could reduce the consumption of ultra-processed foods and particularly harmful ultra-processed foods in schools.”
  • As we’ve previously reported, multiple states have proposed bans on various food additives and “ultra-processed foods.”
  • The bill is currently before the California Senate. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and relay any legislative updates in this area.
  • On May 26, 2025, the Texas House passed SB 25 with bipartisan support. SB 25, also known as the ‘Make Texas Healthy Again’ bill, focuses on promoting nutritional awareness and physical education in schools and improving food labeling practices. The bill would also establish a Nutrition Advisory Committee to help establish, develop, and maintain nutritional guidance within the State.
  • SB 25 also requires food manufacturers to either remove prohibited ingredients listed within the bill­­—such as Red 40 and titanium dioxide—or place a warning label on the product that reads: “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.” This language was amended from what was reported on in a previous blog post. The latest version of the bill makes clear that it does not apply to dietary supplements (among other listed situations).
  • Notably, the bill removed high fructose corn syrup from the list of prohibited ingredients following opposition from numerous food companies after it was introduced. The industry’s opposition letter also urged legislators to remove the warning label requirement, but the proposed amendment did not pass through the House.
  • SB 25 is now heading to Governor Greg Abbott’s desk to be signed into law. The bill would take effect on September 1, 2025.
  • On March 12, the Texas Senate unanimously passed SB 25. While the bill, as currently drafted, does not ban the use of any food additives, it would require food manufacturers to label products that contain certain artificial colors or chemicals, such as titanium dioxide and red 40. Products containing any of the fifty listed substances would have to be labeled with the following text: “WARNING: This product contains an artificial color, chemical, or food additive that is banned in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.” If this bill becomes law as currently drafted, this requirement would take effect on September 1, 2025.
  • SB 25 would also establish a Nutrition Advisory Committee for the state, which would “examine the impact of nutrition on human health and examine the connection between ultra-processed foods, including foods containing artificial color and food additives, and the prevalence of chronic diseases and other chronic health issues.” Additionally, the Committee would “develop and maintain dietary and nutritional guidelines” for the State.
  • On March 12, the Texas Senate also passed SB 314, which would prohibit the use of the following food additives in free or reduced-price meals served in Texas public schools: (1) brominated vegetable oil (BVO); (2) potassium bromate; (3) propylparaben;(4)azodicarbonamide; (5) butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA); (6) red 3; (7) red 40; (8) yellow 5; (9) yellow 6; (10) blue 1; (11) blue 2; (12) green 3; (13) caramel; (14) titanium dioxide. If this bill becomes law as currently drafted, the ban would go into effect beginning with the 2026-2027 school year.
  • The Texas House Committee on Public Health is currently considering SB 25 and SB 314. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor the activity in Texas and report on state bills that impact the food industry.
  • The New York legislature has reintroduced S213B/A4424B to “protect children from junk food companies targeting them with false or misleading advertisements.” The bill passed the Senate last year, but failed to make it out of the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. It has again advanced quickly out of committee in the Senate this year, but remains in committee in the Assembly.
  • General Business Law §§ 350 and 350-A currently prohibit false advertising generally, and Agriculture and Markets Law § 202-A prohibits false or misleading advertisements for food. Key provisions of the proposed law would:
    • Amend Section 202-A to require “special consideration” of whether food advertising is directed to children, in the analysis of whether food advertising is deceptive;
    • Amend Section 350-A to require a court to consider, in its deception analysis of food advertising, whether the advertising (1) “targets a consumer who is reasonably unable to protect their interests because of their age, physical infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, inability to understand the language of an agreement, or similar factor,” or (2) is otherwise an “unfair act, practice, or conduct”;
    • Further amend Section 350-A to require that “special consideration” be given to advertisements directed to children, defined in another section as those “actually or apparently under the age of eighteen years.” The bill defines “consumer” as both “a person who is targeted by an advertisement” and “those acting on such a person’s behalf.” Consequently, the law would apparently apply not only to advertising aimed at children but also advertising aimed at parents or other caregivers, regardless of their age.
  • Conspicuously missing from the statute is any definition of “junk food,” making it difficult to interpret exactly what food advertising might be affected. These new provisions would be enforceable by state regulators, as well as the plaintiff’s bar, given language providing a private right of action.
  • Apart from the advertising implications, another provision would amend the mission of the Childhood Obesity Prevention Program – a Department of Health program developed in cooperation with other state agencies, including the Education Department. The provision would (1) strike current statutory language barring the program from “specifically targeting the elimination of any particular food group, food product, or food-related industry,” and (2) require the program to provide “education on access and the nutritional value of locally grown foods.” No definition of “locally grown foods” is provided.
  • Whether the law would survive a challenge based in the commercial speech doctrine remains to be seen. New York is currently litigating a lawsuit challenging its age restrictions on the sale of weight-loss and bodybuilding supplements to minors. The Bloomberg administration’s attempt to ban certain sales of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces garnered national attention before being struck down by the State Court of Appeals. On the other hand, the city’s 2006 ban on trans fats in restaurants ultimately caught on with other localities and eventually the FDA. In 2015, New York City began to require sodium requirements to be posted in chain restaurants, a practice upheld in court in 2017. More recently, New York reintroduced S6055A, a bill that would ban certain food additives in the state. That bill failed to pass last year.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor legislative and judicial developments affecting commercial speech and is always ready to assist advertisers seeking to take advantage of the full range of permissible speech.
  • On September 11, the California Senate passed AB-418, The California Food Safety Act. As our readers know, if signed into law, AB-418 would prohibit the manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale a food product that contains brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red dye 3.
  • As of just last week, titanium dioxide was removed from the list of prohibited substances. Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, stated earlier this week that supporters of the bill “would have preferred not to take out titanium dioxide” but that “having the four that are in there now […] certainly is a welcome development.” Those in opposition to AB-418, like the American Chemistry Council, believe the bill is “an overly broad and unnecessary burden on consumers, manufacturers, and regulators.”
  • AB-418 passed the Senate in a 33 to 3 vote and is now sent to Governor Gavin Newsom to be signed. Governor Newsom has not indicated where he stands on AB-418. If signed, the bill would go into effect on January 1, 2027.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on any developments.
  • The California Food Safety Act (AB 418) was amended by the Senate to remove titanium dioxide from its list of prohibited substances. Four substances remain on the list: brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red dye 3. The amendment was made just before the Legislature was to cast the final vote on AB 418, but it is now ordered to a third reading.
  • Additionally, in a July amendment, the effectiveness date was amended from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2027, which would give affected parties two additional years to comply if AB 418 is passed.
  • As we have outlined in two previous posts (available here and here), AB 418 would prohibit manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale a food product that contains any of the now four remaining substances. Anyone found to be in violation of the Act would be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for a first violation, and not to exceed $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
  • If passed, AB 418 would be the first law of its kind in the United States. Advocates of the bill, including Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group, argue that these substances have not been adequately reviewed by the FDA and view this bill as a necessary step to remove harmful chemicals from the food supply. The European Union has already imposed restrictions or bans on use of these substances in food.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on any developments in this area.
  • On June 28, 2023, the California Senate Committee on Health approved Assembly Bill 418 (AB 418), which would end the use of certain chemicals in food products sold in California. The bill has already passed California’s lower house and will soon be voted on by the full California Senate. If passed, the bill will go into effect on January 1, 2025.
  • As we have outlined in a previous post, the bill would prohibit manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, holding, or offering for sale a food product that contains any of the following substances: 1) brominated vegetable oil, 2) potassium bromate, 3) propylparaben, 4) Red Dye No. 3, and 5) titanium dioxide. The European Union has already imposed restrictions or bans on use of these substances in food. 
  • If passed, AB 418 would be the first law of its kind in the United States. Advocates of the bill argue that these substances have not been adequately reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and view this bill as a necessary step to remove harmful chemicals from the food supply. However, apart from factual questions regarding the safety of the substances, the bill also raises interesting questions regarding state authority to restrict the use of food additives that have been approved by FDA. 
  • AB 418 has garnered support by various non-governmental organizations, including  Consumer Reports and The Environmental Working Group. Given California’s economic influence, this bill has the potential to significantly impact the food industry well beyond California.  Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on any developments in this area.
  • On June 14, 2022, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed the FDA Safety and Landmark Advancements (FDASLA) Act (S. 4348) which proposes various changes to the regulation of dietary supplements and cosmetics. The legislation was originally introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) on May 26, 2022 and would amend Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
  • Specifically, in regard to dietary supplements, the Act would require that companies list their products with the FDA.  The information required to be submitted in connection with the listing includes the name of the supplement; the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor appearing on the label, and contact information for the owner or operator; the business name and mailing address of all locations in which the dietary supplement is manufactured, packaged, labeled, or held; a list of all ingredients in each supplement; the number of servings per container; directions for use; warnings, notice, and safe handling statements; allergen statements; any health or structure/function claims; and the dietary supplement product listing number. Subject to limited exceptions, this information would be made publicly available in a searchable electronic database.
  • The Act also proposes changes to the regulation of cosmetics. These include (1) adverse event reporting requirements; (2) the establishment of good manufacturing practices (GMPs) for cosmetics facilities; (3) registration and product listing requirements; (4) requirements to maintain records supporting the safety of the cosmetic product; (5) a labeling requirement to include contact information for adverse event reporting; (6) requirement to have records accessible to FDA if there is a reasonable belief that the product (or ingredients therein) presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences; and (7) a mandatory recall authority. In establishing GMP regulations, FDA is directed to consider the size and scope of the cosmetics manufacturer, the risks to public health, and to provide flexibility for different types of facilities. Currently, there is a GMP checklist for cosmetics manufacturers to follow for inspections, but no regulations have been promulgated.
  • Mandatory listing requirements for dietary supplement companies and strengthening of dietary supplement regulation have previously been considered by the FDA. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor this legislation and report on any further updates.
  • The California state legislature recently made amendments to AB 535, a bill that would have prohibited any reference to “California” on olive oil bottles that did not contain 100% California-sourced olive oil. However, amendments to the bill have modified the language such that brands featuring the word “California” or other references to the Golden state on pack can still sell blended olive oil products, as long as the label declares the minimum percentage of California-sourced olive oil in the products in the same font, size, and color as the word “California.” For example, the statement could be declared as “__% California” or “__% California olive oil.”
  • The original version of AB 535 also prohibited labeling a container of olive oil with claims or representations that the olives were grown in a specific region of California unless 85% of the olive oil, by weight, was produced from olives grown in that specific region. However, that section was also amended to permit truthful, not misleading statements or representations regarding geographic origin if the label, packaging material, or advertising contained no representations that are prohibited. For example, a brand name like “Napa Valley Naturals” includes reference to a specific California region, but does not make representations that the olive oil is produced in that region, and thus would not be subject to the bill requirements. However, a phrase like “Napa Valley olive oil” would be required to meet the 85% requirement.
  • The last round of amendments were read and passed in the State Senate on July 15, and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee for a hearing to be held on August 16. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on the progress of AB 535.
  • The House of Representatives passed the PFAS Action Act to regulate the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on July 21, 2021. The bill’s passing follows FDA’s recently published update on testing of PFAS in food to better understand the presence of PFAS in the food supply. As our readers know, PFAS are known for their grease, water, and oil-resistant properties. They are used in a variety of consumer products, including food-contact materials.
  • As passed by the House, the bill would (1) require the Environmental Protection Agency to add two PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoroactanesulfonic acid (PFOS), to the list of hazardous substances within one year and assess all other PFAS within five years to determine whether they should be designated as hazardous substances; and (2) require EPA to determine whether PFAS should be designated as toxic pollutants under the Clean Water Act. Designation as a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act (CERCLA) triggers remediation for and cleanup of sites impacted by the substances but does not regulate use of hazardous substances. The bill would also require the EPA Administrator to monitor PFAS in drinking water and permit a “PFAS-free” indication on nonstick cookware.
  • The bill passed 241-183, with 23 Republican members joining Democrats, and will now move to the Senate. The Act is a revived version of a 2020 bill of the same name that passed the House in January 2020 but died in a Republican-led Senate.