• This week, twenty-five US states and the District of Columbia (DC) filed suit in the US District Court of Massachusetts against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Office of Management and Budget (OMB), arguing that the agency’s decision to suspend Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits amid the ongoing government shutdown is an abuse of discretion. 
  • The coalition seeks a declaration that the impending November 1 suspension is “both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.”  The complaint states that Congress has appropriated $6 billion for the SNAP contingency fund and that USDA also has access to a Section 32 fund that are available to cover the November benefits.  The complaint goes on to state that, “[s]uspending benefits will ultimately transfer costs to state and local governments and community organizations, as families increasingly rely on emergency services and public safety net programs, such as local food pantries.”
  • SNAP is a mandatory entitlement program that provides roughly 42 million US residents an average of $187/month in food aid.  The program costs roughly $8 billion/month to fund, which is allocated through annual congressional appropriations.  As we previously reported, various groups have already reached out to USDA, urging USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to use all available resources to avoid disruptions to SNAP.  Currently, the USDA SNAP webpage includes a banner stating that the “well has run dry” and blaming Senate Democrats for USDA’s decision not to send out benefits on November 1.
  • In a memorandum provided to NPR, USDA stated that SNAP contingency funds “are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits.”  Those contingency funds are intended by law “for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations.”
  • Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order enjoining the suspension of SNAP benefits and have requested an emergency hearing, which is scheduled for October 30, 2025.  Keller and Heckman will report any developments with this lawsuit.
  • We have previously blogged about NYC’s updated Food Standards for foods and beverages which go into effect July 1, 2026. NYC’s Food Standards were first introduced in 2008 and are now mandated to be updated every three years. The Food Standards apply to meals served by agencies such as the Department of Education, Health and Hospitals, Department of Correction, and Human Resources Administration among others. The updated Food Standards would, among other things, change nutritional requirements, ban certain additives, and eliminate processed meats.
  • The National Chicken Council (NCC) sent a letter to NYC mayor Eric Adams earlier this month expressing concerns that the updated Food Standards might eliminate products such as chicken nuggets and patties which it argues provide high quality nutrition in a form which is palatable to children. The letter argues that a “process-first definition of ‘healthy’ overlooks what truly matters: nutrient composition.”
  • The letter concludes by requesting “administrative clarification” confirming that “formed and breaded poultry products meeting New York City’s nutrient and additive standards remain eligible for purchase and service.” The Food Standards define “processed meat” as “meat that has been transformed to enhance flavor or improve preservation” by curing, fermentation, salting, or smoking.

  • The Campbell’s Company has been sued (Law360 subscription required) for allegedly falsely advertising its Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips as containing “no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives,” despite containing citric acid, which is synthetic, according to the complaint.
  • The plaintiff alleges that the label on the Cape Cod chips “puts forth a straightforward, material message: the Products contain only coloring, flavoring and preservative ingredients that are natural and not synthetic.” According to the plaintiff, the claims are made to “capitalize on the growing market for natural products,” for which consumers are willing to pay a premium.
  • The complaint further alleges that natural citric acid is no longer commercially available, and only synthetic citric acid is used in packaged foods. Further, the complaint cites FDA Warning Letters from 2001 that state products could not be labeled as “natural” because they contained citric acid.
  • Finally, the complaint states—without citing to any evidence—that synthetic citric acid consumption has been linked with various adverse health effects.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor this and other food related litigation.
  • The European Parliament has voted to prohibit the use of meat-related terms on plant-based and cultivated protein products, as part of its first reading adoption of the legislative proposal A10-0161/2025. This proposal amends Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115, and (EU) 2021/2116.
  • Under the proposed changes to Annex VII of Regulation 1308/2013, the term “meat” would be defined exclusively as “the edible parts of an animal,” and a list of designations (including “beef,” “chicken,” “ribs,” and “bacon”) would be reserved for products derived solely from animal sources at all stages of marketing. The proposal explicitly states that these terms shall exclude cell-cultured products.
  • Supporters of the measure argue that using meat-related descriptors for non-animal products can mislead consumers and undermine the cultural and economic value of traditional farming. Opponents counter that consumers are not confused by current labeling practices and that familiar terms help consumers make informed choices. Critics also warn that the ban could stifle innovation and contradict EU goals related to sustainability and food system modernization.
  • Similar pushback against plant-based and cellular agriculture has been developing in the United States. In early 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidance recommending that plant-based products include clear statements of identity specifying the plant source (e.g., “soy-based chicken”) to avoid misleading consumers. As we have previously blogged, several states—including Florida, Texas, and Nebraska—have enacted bans on the sale of “lab-grown” meat, citing concerns over food safety, transparency, and the protection of traditional agriculture.
  • The legislative proposal in the EU must still undergo further review by the European Commission and the governments of the EU’s 27 member states before it can become law.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to the labeling and regulation of plant-based and alternative proteins.
  • Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, and Texas have recently issued updates regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, warning that there may be suspension of food stamps coming in November.  Pennsylvania’s Department of Human Services issued a notice stating that, “November 2025 SNAP benefits cannot be paid… [and] Starting October 16, SNAP benefits will not be paid until the federal government shutdown ends and funds are released to [the state].”
  • These announcements come after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the SNAP program, issued a letter to state agencies stating that, “if the current lapse in appropriations continues, there will be insufficient funds to pay full November SNAP benefits for approximately 42 million individuals across the Nation.”  The US government has been shut down now for three weeks. 
  • In response, the United Conference of Mayors (USCM) issued its own letter to USDA, calling on USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to use all available resources to avoid disruptions to SNAP, including the SNAP contingency fund and any additional administrative resources.  Additionally, in a joint letter to USDA, 46 US senators urged Secretary Rollins to “release the billions of dollars at its disposal to ensure [SNAP] benefits continue in November.”
  • A class action lawsuit filed earlier this year against Mitra-9 Brands, LLC, alleged that the company’s Kratom-containing seltzers, powders, and shots were falsely and misleadingly advertised, primarily because they failed to disclose the allegedly addictive properties of Kratom. Plaintiff alleges that Kratom has addictive properties similar to opioids and that he suffered from withdrawal symptoms after discontinuing use of Defendant’s products.
  • Defendant argues in a motion to dismiss (Laws360 subscription required) filed this week that no express representation relating to addiction was made, that Plaintiff has failed to allege that the product as formulated is addictive, and that Plaintiff had not alleged anything suggesting that Defendant had a duty to disclose Kratom’s addictive properties.  
  • We note that FDA takes the position that conventional foods and dietary supplements containing kratom are adulterated and has initiated enforcement actions against Kratom-containing products. 
  • The Meat and Poultry Products Industry Coalition (MPP), a group of trade associations representing the meat and poultry processing industries, has filed a motion to intervene (Law360 subscription required) in a lawsuit brought by several environmental and animal groups against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for pulling back a proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) rule. According to MPP, the EPA “cannot adequately represent” its members’ interests, which may differ from EPA’s interests.
  • In 2024, the EPA proposed a rule to strengthen effluent limitations for the meat and poultry products point source category under the CWA, saying that the regulations needed to be updated to address effects of certain nutrients on the environment.  However, the Trump administration’s EPA withdrew the proposal in September 2025, saying that it reached a different conclusion about whether it is “appropriate” to update the regulation.
  • In response, a group of environmental and animal focused organizations sued the EPA, arguing that “the proposal would have stopped millions of pounds of pollutants from being dumped by slaughterhouses and meat processing plants into waterways across the U.S.”
  • MPP argued in its motion to intervene that its members would suffer “significant, including irreparable, harm, including the closure of business” if the groups were to prevail.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor this lawsuit.
  • On October 13, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 68 (the Allergen Disclosure for Dining Experiences Act) into law, making California the first state to require restaurant chains to disclose major food allergens on their menus. The law will take effect on July 1, 2026
  • SB 68 applies to food facilities that are already subject to federal menu labeling requirements under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations—namely, restaurant chains with 20 or more locations operating under the same name and offering substantially the same menu items. These establishments will be required to disclose the presence of any of the nine major food allergens (milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, wheat, soy, and sesame) that are known or reasonably should be known to be present in each menu item.
  • Restaurants may comply by:
    • Listing allergens directly on the menu, adjacent to each item, or
    • Providing the information digitally, such as through a QR code linking to an online allergen menu. If using a digital format, restaurants must also offer a non-digital alternative, which may include an allergen-specific menu, chart, grid, booklet, or other written materials.
  • The law does not apply to compact mobile food operations, nonpermanent food facilities, or prepackaged foods already covered by federal allergen labeling requirements.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to allergen disclosure laws.
  • The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has upheld the legality of Massachusetts’ Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (“Question 3“) after pork industry members failed to argue that it violates the US Constitution and is preempted by federal law.
  • Question 3 (Q3) imposes minimum space requirements for breeding sows, veal calves, and egg-laying hens and went into effect in August 2023.  As with California’s Proposition 12, the space requirements allow more space for animals to stand up, lie down, extend limbs, and turn around freely.
  • As we previously reported, pork producers filed suit in the US District Court of Massachusetts, arguing that Q3 intentionally discriminates against interstate commerce by disadvantaging out-of-state farmers, and thus unconstitutional.  Plaintiffs also argued that Q3 is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).  However, the district court rejected these constitutional arguments and held that the law was not preempted by FMIA because it does not regulate slaughterhouse operations.  Plaintiffs then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and were backed by 22 states.
  • The appeals court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments, noting that both Massachusetts and out-of-state producers must abide by the same regulations.  It also concluded that, given the Supreme Court’s ruling on California’s Proposition 12, plaintiffs did not clear the threshold needed to show a “substantial burden” on interstate commerce.  Additionally, the court held that FMIA does not expressly preempt Q3 because Q3 regulates pork production, rather than pork inspection like FMIA, and because complying with Q3 does not “render it impossible” to comply with FMIA.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor litigation addressing state food and agriculture legislation.
  • Last week, the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) filed a lawsuit challenging West Virginia’s HB 2354.
  • HB 2354, which was signed into law in March 2025, bans the use of seven synthetic color additives in food products sold in the state (Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, and Green 3) along with BHA and propylparaben. A general ban on their use becomes effective on January 1, 2028, while a ban on the use of the synthetic color additives in school nutrition programs is already in effect as of August 1, 2025. The bill exempts persons who sell less than $5,000 per month of food containing the banned additives.
  • The lawsuit, which asserts claims for relief under the U.S. and West Virginia constitutions, alleges that the ban on the color additives, among other faults, has no scientific basis, ignores the safety determinations that were made when FDA granted the respective color additive petitions, and offers no new evidence that brings into question the safety of the color additives.
  • IACM’s complaint states that IACM has elected not to challenge HB 2354 as to its ban on Red 3 because FDA has already revoked the authorization for Red 3’s use in food (effective Jan. 15, 2027) based on FDA’s interpretation of the Delaney clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (and not a risk to human health).