• On June 20, 2025, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed SB 14, now known as Act 463, into law to require on-pack QR codes linking consumers to an ingredient disclosure statement on a web page controlled by the manufacturer. The law requires that a statement must be adjacent to the QR code informing consumers that additional ingredient information can be found by scanning the code. The web page is required to contain the following disclaimer in a prominent location: “NOTICE: This product contains [insert ingredient here]. For more information about this ingredient, including FDA approvals, click HERE.” The disclaimer will link to FDA’s web page regarding food chemical safety.
    • Notably, Act 463 does not contain a federal preemption provision like the recently passed Texas law (SB 25) requiring on-pack warning labels for food products that contain specific ingredients. We briefly discussed the impact of this provision in a previous blog post.
  • The ingredients subject to disclosure requirements are largely the same as those covered by Texas SB 25. However, unlike the Texas law, ficin, titanium dioxide, and diacetyl tartaric and fatty acid esters of mono- and diglycerides (DATEM) are not included in Act 463. The Louisiana law instead includes acesulfame potassium, aspartame, and sucralose in their list of ingredients subject to disclosure.
  • Additionally, Section 662 of the law requires foodservice establishments that cook or prepare food using seed oils to display a disclaimer on either the menu or another “clearly visible” location at the establishment. The disclaimer must read: “Some menu items may contain or be prepared using seed oils.” For purposes of this section, “seed oil” includes canola or rapeseed oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, rice bran oil, safflower oil, soybean oil, and sunflower oil.
  • Beginning with the 2028-29 school year, Act 463 also prohibits Louisiana public and nonpublic schools that receive state funds from serving meals that contain any of the fifteen ingredients listed under Section 197.2(B), including sucralose and a majority of the FDA approved colors. This section of the law does not apply to any food or beverages sold in concession stands or vending machines.
  • The law’s disclosure requirements for retail and restaurants will take effect on January 1, 2028. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor updates on the passage of state laws requiring ingredient disclosure statements.
  • On July 2, 2025, the European Commission published a new Communication entitled “a strategy to position the EU as the world’s most attractive place for life sciences by 2030.” Recognizing that “the European life science sector is at a critical juncture” with fierce competition from the U.S. and China and innovative companies are struggling to scale up in Europe, the Communication anticipates numerous initiatives intended to accelerate and facilitate market access to life sciences innovation and build public trust in new technologies. A key element of this strategy is the awaited European Biotech Act, which aims to make relevant regulations “more conducive” to innovation in the life sciences space.
  • Notably, the strategy highlights the Commission’s intention to render current food regulatory approval procedures “more agile and proportionate, without compromising safety.” The Commission recognizes that innovators must currently navigate complex (and potentially multiple) regulatory frameworks, both under EU and national legislation, which reduces the competitiveness of the EU compared to other regions. For example, in order to be placed on the EU market, a novel food must go through several regulatory approval steps, including risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which can take a significant amount of time. The new strategy aims to make these procedures more efficient and significantly reduce their length.
  • To boost regulatory efficiency and innovative thinking, the Commission also aims to integrate into future EU legislation experimentation clauses and use of test environments such as “regulatory sandboxes” permitting the development of new ideas without being subjected to regulatory restrictions. The Commission further plans to adopt a new artificial technology (AI) tool to help researchers navigate the complex EU regulatory landscape.
  • Citing consumer uncertainty resulting from a lack of clear information on the risks and benefits of so-called “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs), the Commission intends to seek advice on UPFs from the Scientific Advice Mechanism and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and post relevant updates on the European Commission’s new life sciences strategy.
  • On Monday, June 30, 2025, FDA’s Human Food Program published its proposed 2025 guidance agenda (FDA’s news release shown here). The agenda contains possible new topics for guidance documents or revisions to existing guidance documents.
  • The entire list of new guidance topics under the 2025 agenda can be found here. The potential new topics include:
    • New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Notifications and Related Issues: Identity and Safety Information About the NDI: Guidance for Industry
    • Food Colors Derived from Natural Sources: Fruit Juice and Vegetable Juice as Color Additives in Food; Draft Guidance for Industry
    • Action Levels for Cadmium in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children; Draft Guidance for Industry
  • Importantly, guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable rights or responsibilities (see here). Rather, guidance documents represent FDA’s “current thinking” on a particular topic and serve merely as a resource for businesses and organizations. FDA’s good guidance practices outlined in 21 CFR 10.115 provide, among other things, that the agency will seek public comment on any guidance documents that address more than minor changes in interpretation or policy (Level 1 guidance).
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to FDA’s forthcoming guidance documents.
  • On June 20, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 261 into law banning the “manufacture, processing, possession, distribution, offer for sale, and sale of cell-cultured protein” starting on September 1, 2025. The law will be in force until September 1, 2027, where the state legislature will then assess whether to cease or continue the ban. The law defines cell-cultured protein as “a food product derived from harvesting animal cells and artificially replicating those cells in a growth medium to produce tissue.” Violations of the ban are punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21.
  • In support of SB 261, the Texas House of Representatives cited concerns over cell-cultured protein posing “safety risks for consumers, as its creation process involves direct interaction with microplastics that can cause disruptions in the human cell membrane.”
  • Opponents of the law argue that it conflicts with federal oversight. As we reported previously, lab-grown meat was first approved for sale in the United States in 2023. Both FDA and USDA share regulatory jurisdiction over the industry as detailed in a 2019 memorandum of understanding between the agencies. The FDA oversees the cell collection and growth process, while USDA is responsible for the labeling and inspection of the final product.
  • Texas now joins Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Nebraska in enacting lab-grown meat laws this year, while Alabama and Florida did so last year. In March 2025, the Oklahoma House approved a similar bill, but it did not pass through the Senate.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to cell-cultured meat.
  • FDA announced on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, that it has updated Compliance Program 7321.005, now titled General Food Labeling Requirements and Labeling-Related Sample-Analysis – Domestic and Import. This updated Compliance Program (CP) includes guidelines and procedures that the FDA uses for both domestic and overseas inspections of food facilities.
  • The major changes were summarized by FDA as “incorporation of sesame as the ninth major food allergen” and “guidance on gluten-free labeling requirements.” The CP also includes nutrient declaration changes to make the document align with the updated Nutrient Facts Label. A more extensive list of updates can be found on page 4 of the Compliance Program.
  • The updated CP has been heavily edited throughout, both in terms of its text and formatting. The document was originally 33 pages long in total; the updated version is now almost twice as long at 61 pages.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor FDA regulatory changes related to food labeling.
  • Sources have reported to Reuters that the U.S. government intends to remove its recommendation within the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) that adults limit alcohol consumption to one or two drinks per day. Instead, the DGA, 2025-2030 are expected to include a generalized 1-2 sentence statement that encourages Americans to drink in moderation or limit alcohol intake.
  • The DGA are updated every five years by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Guidelines have advised drinking no more than one to two drinks per day since 1990. The guidelines are still under development and subject to change, so it is unclear what effect the finalized recommendations will have on the alcoholic beverage industry.
  • Science Over Bias, a coalition of beer, wine, and spirits interests, released a statement to Reuters and other media members saying the Dietary Guidelines for Americans has not yet been published and should be based on “sound scientific evidence” and “free from bias.”
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor updates related to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
  • On June 17, 2025, General Mills announced its plans to remove certified color additives from all of its U.S. cereals and what the company referred to as its K-12 school portfolio by summer 2026.  Certified color additives authorized for use in food in the United States are found in FDA’s color additive regulations, specifically 21 CFR part 74, subpart A.
  • The same day, Kraft Heinz similarly pledged to remove the certified color additives  from its U.S. portfolio before the end of 2027. Jeff Harmening, chairman and CEO of General Mills, calls the company’s scheduled change an example of meeting “evolving consumer needs.”
  • These moves come a few months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) encouraged the food industry to phase out the use of  certified color additives (see previous blog here). FDA has not initiated any formal regulatory process to revoke the authorizations for synthetic color additives, but instead will likely continue to encourage voluntary phase outs and possibly state bans (see here).
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to synthetic color additives.
  • On June 22, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 25 into law to require on-pack warning labels for food and beverage products that contain any of the substances listed within the bill, including titanium dioxide and FDA approved food colors such as Red 40. As we previously reported, the Texas House passed SB 25 on May 26, 2025, with bipartisan support and backing from the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
  • The law adds Sections 431.0815, 431.0816, and 431.0817 to Subchapter D, Chapter 431 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The law requires companies to either remove or place a warning label “in a prominent and reasonably visible location” on any product that contains any of the 44 listed substances. The warning 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.” This requirement applies to food product labels “developed or copyrighted” on or after January 1, 2027. In addition to seeking an injunction, the Attorney General may impose a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per day for each individual food product that violates this requirement.
  • Notably, the law includes a federal preemption provision (Section 431.0817) that should limit the law’s impact on warning label requirements. The provision states that a warning label is not required if FDA or USDA have (1) prohibited the use of the ingredient, (2) imposed conditions on the use of the ingredient (including the requirement of a warning or disclosure statement), or (3) determined an ingredient or class of ingredients is safe for human consumption by federal law or regulation promulgated by the FDA. A warning label is also not required if a federal law or regulation requires a labeling statement relating to ultra-processed or processed foods. This language was included in SB 25 following an amendment made by Representative Gary VanDeaver.
  • Based on the federal preemption provision’s language, if FDA has implemented a regulation authorizing the use of an ingredient, it will not require a warning label. For example, sodium hydroxide (also known as lye) is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient by FDA (21 CFR 184.1763). Sodium hydroxide is also approved for use in the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
  • The law will take effect on September 1, 2025. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and post updates on similar state legislation requiring ingredient disclosures or labels.
  • On June 18, 2025, FDA announced its proposed “method for post-market assessments of chemicals in the food supply.” This “Post-market Assessment Prioritization Tool” will give chemicals an overall score that will be used to rank each post-market chemical assessment in order of priority. We previously reported on FDA’s proposed systematic process for post-market assessment of chemicals in foods, which had its comment period extended to January 21, 2025.
  • According to FDA’s proposed method, a chemical’s overall score will be calculated from a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) which will use four Public Health Criteria and three Other Decisional Criteria. The Public Health Criteria are toxicity, change in exposure, effects on a susceptible subpopulation (e.g., children), and availability of new scientific information. The Other Decisional Criteria are external stakeholder attention, other government decisions, and public confidence in the U.S. food supply.
  • The total score of the Public Health Criteria is given equal weight to that of the Other Decision Criteria, as they both get a score of 1-9 and then the two are averaged to calculate the chemical’s overall score. FDA’s press release points to how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) similarly prioritizes certain substances for risk evaluation, though notably the EPA criteria are already specified in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) § 2605(b)(1)(B) and are “without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors.”
  • The proposed prioritization method will be open to public comments until July 18, 2025 under Docket No. FDA-2025-N-1733. In a departure from past practice, there is no Federal Register notice announcing the establishment of this docket for receipt of public comments, only a link in FDA’s announcement to the docket on www.regulations.gov.  By way of contrast, see FDA’s August 2024 Federal Register notice announcing a public meeting and soliciting public comment on FDA’s Post-Market Assessment of Chemicals in Food (89 Fed. Reg. 65633, Aug. 12, 2024). 
  • Keller and Heckman would be happy to prepare comments and we will continue to monitor and relay updates on FDA’s post-market review process.
  • On June 10, the House Appropriations Committee released the full committee markup of Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Bill. A summary of the bill can be found here.
  • The bill puts forth the proposed 2026 budget for several federal agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Currently, the bill provides roughly $6.7 billion for FDA and $22 billion for USDA.
  • The act highlights restrictions on how the allocated money can be spent and what the money can be spent on. For example, FDA is prohibited from promoting any new guidelines or regulations applicable to food manufacturers for Listeria monocytogenes until FDA considers the available new science in updating Compliance Policy Guide (CGP), Sec. 555.320. FDA is also prohibited from developing new long-term guidelines on sodium reduction until it considers the impact of its short-term sodium reduction targets.
  • The bill also clarifies that until the compliance date of the new healthy rule (February 25, 2028), industry may rely on either the previous or the new requirements, and that states are preempted from enacting any different requirements.
  • Among the provisions related to animal feed, the bill provides that all ingredients listed in the AAFCO Official Publication Chapter 6 are GRAS unless FDA has made a contrary determination. Separately, FDA would be directed to develop standards for “natural” claims for animal food.
  • The bill also places protections on the hemp industry by forbidding the use of any funds allocated by this act to prohibit the “transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp … within or outside the State in which the hemp is grown or cultivated.”  It would also narrow the definition of “hemp” to cover only products with a total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis (as opposed to the current definition’s focus only on the delta-9 THC content).
  • This bill is, of course, subject to change as the appropriations process moves ahead. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor activities involving FDA’s funding for FY26.