Whether intended or not, the national spotlight on MAHA has emboldened states to assert their authority to implement their own food and beverage regulations, creating a patchwork of differing – and sometimes conflicting – state laws that are becoming a major challenge for manufacturers. Indeed, as more states pass their own laws, companies find themselves juggling a complex and costly web of rules, all while trying to stay compliant with federal requirements. Here are some examples:

Color and Food Additives

MAHA has pushed for stricter monitoring of chemicals in the food supply and the elimination of certain food and color additives. State legislatures have done the same, making these priorities into laws. Louisiana passed legislation banning certain artificial dyes and preservatives in school meals. West Virginia passed legislation banning seven food dyes in schools and statewide by 2028. And California passed legislation requiring ultra processed foods to be phased out of California public elementary and secondary school meals by July 1, 2035.

Warning Labels

States are adopting labeling requirements for food ingredients. Texas legislation passed in June 2025 requires that food products containing any of 44 specified ingredients include a warning statement on their labels, starting in 2027. Louisiana legislation that will be effective in January 2028, mandates that food packaging include a QR code linking to a manufacturer-controlled website that must display a required disclosure for each flagged ingredient.

GRAS

States are also moving ahead of federal efforts to reform the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) determination process. New York introduced legislation requiring companies selling food in the state to disclose information supporting their GRAS determinations to the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets for review. Pennsylvania introduced legislation that would require companies that make, sell or distribute food in Pennsylvania to disclose the use of any GRAS substances — along with documentation showing the substance is safe under the conditions intended for use.

Cell-Cultured Meats

States are aggressively drafting legislation that restricts or prohibits these products entirely. Mississippi banned the manufacture, sale or distribution of food products produced from cultured animal cells, with Florida and Alabama passing similar bans on the sale of cultured meat. South Dakota prohibits the use of state funds for the research, production, promotion, sale or distribution of cell-cultured protein. Indiana passed a temporary two-year ban on both the manufacture and sale of cultivated meat products, and Nebraska passed a complete ban on the manufacture and sale of cultivated-protein food products. Both Montana and Texas also passed bans on the manufacture and sale of cell-cultured edible products.

Future developments

With more states expected to follow suit by adopting these or other regulations, food and beverage companies need to stay ahead of the chaos. Proactive and tailored compliance strategies are a must. The companies that do so will be better positioned to navigate the ever-evolving regulatory landscape.