MAHA Goes to the States: The Emerging Patchwork of Food Regulation

By David Graham

The Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, agenda has placed food ingredients, synthetic colors, ultra-processed foods, and the Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, framework near the center of federal food policy. But for food manufacturers, the most consequential development may be occurring outside Washington.

Federal agencies continue to advance significant food-policy initiatives. FDA has proposed mandatory GRAS notifications, is reassessing selected food chemicals, and is encouraging the removal of petroleum-based synthetic colors. HHS and USDA are also working toward the federal government's first definition of ultra-processed foods. But several of these initiatives remain proposed, under review, subject to congressional action, or dependent on voluntary industry action rather than final, broadly applicable federal requirements.

States, meanwhile, have moved ahead with their own approaches. California, West Virginia, Arizona, Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, and others have enacted laws addressing ingredients, synthetic colors, ultra-processed foods, school meals, warnings, or disclosures. The laws do not follow a single model: some prohibit particular substances; some apply only to schools; some require additional information on packaging; and some create state-specific definitions of ultra-processed food.

The result is an increasingly complicated compliance environment. A food ingredient that remains permitted under federal law may be restricted in one state, prohibited in a particular sales channel in another, or trigger additional labeling or disclosure requirements somewhere else. For companies that manufacture and distribute food nationally, formulation and labeling decisions may therefore require a state-by-state analysis in addition to the traditional FDA review.

What Is the Federal MAHA Food Policy Agenda in 2026?

The federal government has not stopped acting on food regulation. FDA's Human Foods Program identified food chemical safety as a major 2026 priority, but the initiatives now underway are moving through different regulatory processes and on different timelines. Among the most significant:

• GRAS reform. In August 2026, FDA proposed changing the GRAS notification system to require notification for certain uses of substances claimed to be generally recognized as safe. The proposal would give FDA substantially greater visibility into substances entering the food supply through independent GRAS conclusions.
• Food chemical review. FDA continues to reassess chemicals already used in food, including through expanded toxicity-screening tools and post-market review. Its 2026 priorities include propylparaben, butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA, butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, and phthalates.
• Ultra-processed foods. FDA and USDA have been working toward a common federal definition of ultra-processed food. After seeking public input in 2025, HHS announced in August 2026 that HHS and USDA had submitted a proposed definition for final review. A final federal standard has not yet been established.
• Synthetic food colors. FDA revoked the authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 in food, with the food-use authorization ending January 15, 2027. The agency is also encouraging industry to voluntarily eliminate six other widely used certified colors and has expanded flexibility for certain voluntary "no artificial colors" claims.

Taken together, these developments show a federal food-policy agenda advancing on several tracks at once. Some measures create binding obligations on a defined timetable, while others remain proposals, agency priorities, or voluntary industry initiatives. For manufacturers, the distinction matters because the legal effect of each action can differ even when the broader policy direction is similar. That uneven federal landscape has also left room for states to move independently.

How Are States Regulating Food Additives and Ultra-Processed Foods?

States have increasingly filled that regulatory space with their own approaches to food ingredients, labeling, and school nutrition.

HHS itself now maintains a MAHA state-policy tracker identifying state actions involving food dyes, ultra-processed foods, school nutrition, SNAP restrictions, and related subjects. The trend predates the current federal MAHA initiative in some jurisdictions, most notably California, but has broadened substantially in recent years.

For industry, the challenge is that these laws do not follow a common regulatory model. Tracking a single list of “banned ingredients” will not be enough.

California has enacted both statewide ingredient restrictions and school-specific requirements. West Virginia has adopted restrictions reaching both school meals and the broader sale of food. Arizona has created an ingredient-based statutory definition of ultra-processed food for schools. Virginia has targeted synthetic colors in public-school food. Texas has adopted a warning-label approach. Louisiana has adopted QR-code ingredient disclosures and a separate disclosure regime for certain seed oils.

"The practical problem is that federal permission no longer answers the whole question as it relates to food additives. A company may be able to lawfully use an ingredient under federal law and still face a state prohibition, a school-channel restriction, or an additional disclosure requirement. That makes ingredient mapping and state-law monitoring part of ordinary product planning."

David Graham, Senior Counsel

Which State Food Ingredient Laws Should Manufacturers Be Tracking?

The differences among state approaches are significant because they affect different products, customers, and compliance activities:

• California: The California Food Safety Act restricts brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red No. 3 beginning January 1, 2027. California has separately restricted six synthetic colors in public schools beginning December 31, 2027, and its Real Food, Healthy Kids Act establishes a framework for identifying and eventually restricting certain ultra-processed foods in schools.
• West Virginia: Since August 2025, the state has prohibited seven synthetic dyes in school nutrition programs. Beginning January 1, 2028, its broader food-adulteration law will also reach BHA, propylparaben, and those same seven colors, extending the issue beyond school sales.
• Arizona: Beginning with the 2026–2027 school year, the Healthy Schools Act prohibits participating schools from serving or selling foods the law defines as "ultraprocessed." Arizona's definition is tied to a specified ingredient list and may differ from whatever federal definition FDA and USDA ultimately establish.
• Virginia: Effective July 1, 2027, Virginia public schools may not offer school meals or competitive foods containing seven specified synthetic colors.
• Texas: Senate Bill 25 establishes warning-label requirements for certain foods containing any of 44 listed ingredients, subject to statutory exceptions. Industry groups challenged the requirement on First Amendment, Commerce Clause, and preemption grounds, and a federal court preliminarily enjoined enforcement in February 2026. Texas has appealed.
• Louisiana: Beginning January 1, 2028, certain foods containing any of 44 listed ingredients must include a QR-code disclosure directing consumers to additional ingredient information. Louisiana has separately imposed disclosure requirements on food-service establishments using specified seed oils.

These laws illustrate why the state trend cannot be reduced to a single list of prohibited additives. Depending on the jurisdiction, companies may face outright ingredient restrictions, school-specific rules, warning requirements, digital disclosures, or other requirements affecting how and where a product can be sold.

Can Federal Food Law Preempt State MAHA Requirements?

As state food legislation expands, preemption will become increasingly important. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, contains express preemption provisions for certain food-labeling requirements. Section 403A generally prevents states from establishing requirements that are not identical to specified federal requirements governing matters such as ingredient labeling, nutrition labeling, standards of identity, and certain claims.

But the statute does not simply prohibit every state food-labeling law. The NLEA includes language addressing state safety warnings, while also preserving the possibility of other forms of federal preemption arising under the Constitution, the FD&C Act, other federal laws, or final federal agency action.

That makes the analysis highly dependent on the type of state requirement.

A state ingredient prohibition presents different issues from a state-mandated warning. A school procurement restriction presents different issues from a requirement imposed on food offered for general retail sale. And a disclosure concerning an ingredient already listed on the federally required ingredient statement may present different questions from a requirement directed at nutrition labeling or a federally defined claim.

Texas illustrates the point. The challenge to SB 25 is not limited to preemption. The plaintiffs have also asserted First Amendment and Commerce Clause theories, and the district court's preliminary injunction rested on the compelled-speech issue.

Companies should therefore be cautious about assuming either that federal authorization automatically displaces a state requirement or that every state food law will necessarily survive judicial review. The answer may turn on the particular ingredient, the type of state requirement, the federal statutory and regulatory framework applicable to the product, and the way the state has structured its law.

What Does the State Food Regulation Patchwork Mean for National Manufacturers?

The emerging state landscape changes how companies may need to approach product development, labeling, procurement, and distribution.

Historically, a national manufacturer could often begin its ingredient analysis by asking whether FDA permitted an ingredient for the intended use and under what conditions. That question remains essential, but it may no longer be sufficient.

A company selling nationally may now need to distinguish among:

• Ingredients that FDA has prohibited.
• Ingredients that FDA permits but a state prohibits.
• Ingredients that remain federally authorized but are being voluntarily phased out.
• Ingredients restricted only in school channels.
• Ingredients that trigger state-specific warnings or disclosures.

That can affect business decisions well before a statutory effective date. Reformulation can require new suppliers, stability and sensory testing, updated specifications, revised labels, changed manufacturing processes, new inventory planning, customer communications, and commercial decisions about whether a separate formulation or package is economically realistic.

For many companies, a single nationwide reformulation may eventually make more operational sense than maintaining state-specific products. For others, especially companies with limited distribution in a state or products sold through distinct channels, differentiated formulations or packaging may remain feasible. The legal requirement is only one part of that decision.

Companies preparing for this environment should consider:

• Building a SKU-level inventory identifying relevant additives, colors, preservatives, sweeteners, and other ingredients, together with the states and channels in which each product is sold.
• Separating federal regulatory status from state regulatory status rather than treating FDA authorization as the end of the analysis.
• Prioritizing 2027 and 2028 compliance deadlines now, particularly where reformulation, packaging changes, supplier qualification, or shelf-life considerations require substantial lead time.
• Reviewing supplier documentation and contractual provisions to ensure ingredient information is sufficiently precise to support state-law analyses.
• Evaluating whether school, institutional, retail, food-service, and direct-to-consumer channels create different compliance requirements.
• Considering whether voluntary claims made after reformulation, including claims concerning artificial colors, ingredients, processing, or "clean" formulations, are adequately substantiated and unlikely to mislead consumers.
• Monitoring litigation involving state warning and labeling requirements, because judicial decisions could affect whether similar laws are enacted or enforced elsewhere.
• Coordinating regulatory, legal, quality, procurement, marketing, and commercial teams before making national reformulation or labeling decisions.

The practical objective is to avoid treating each new state enactment as an isolated event. Companies need a system for identifying when a proposed or enacted law affects an existing product, a future formulation, a particular customer, or a planned labeling change.

How Could Federal MAHA Action Affect State Food Laws?

The relationship between state and federal food policy is likely to continue changing.

Federal action could narrow some state-law differences. Consider Red No. 3 as an example. California included the color in its 2023 state prohibition, but FDA subsequently revoked the federal food authorization, with a January 15, 2027, effective date. Brominated vegetable oil followed a similar trajectory, with California acting before FDA completed its federal revocation.

Other ingredients may move differently. FDA is conducting post-market reviews of selected chemicals, but a state could restrict a substance before FDA completes a federal review or could regulate it differently based on state legislative findings.

The federal definition of ultra-processed food may also become increasingly important. A federal definition could provide a common vocabulary for research and federal policymaking, but it will not necessarily erase state definitions that have already been enacted for specific purposes. Arizona and California have already built state regulatory mechanisms around their own approaches.

Similarly, FDA's proposed GRAS rule could substantially increase federal visibility into food ingredients without resolving every state issue. Mandatory notification would change the federal process for many GRAS conclusions, but state legislatures could continue targeting specific substances or categories independently.

The direction of travel therefore may be toward greater federal scrutiny and greater state activity at the same time.

For manufacturers, that means regulatory planning should account for both.

How Gardner Law Can Help

Gardner Law advises food and beverage companies on FDA, USDA, FTC, and state requirements affecting ingredients, formulation, labeling, advertising, manufacturing, and distribution.

As state food laws proliferate, we can help companies develop a practical approach to identifying and managing requirements across jurisdictions. That includes reviewing ingredient portfolios against federal and state requirements, evaluating whether particular state laws apply to specific products or distribution channels, assessing reformulation and labeling options, and advising on federal preemption and other legal issues raised by state requirements.

We can also work with regulatory, quality, procurement, marketing, and commercial teams before formulation or packaging changes are finalized. For companies facing multiple upcoming effective dates, early legal review can help distinguish requirements that demand immediate operational changes from measures that remain proposed, subject to rulemaking, limited to particular sales channels, or affected by pending litigation.

As FDA continues its work on GRAS reform, food chemical review, synthetic colors, and ultra-processed foods, Gardner Law can help companies track how those federal developments interact with state requirements and determine what changes are necessary for particular products.

The emerging framework is unlikely to be uniform. Companies that understand where federal and state requirements overlap, where they diverge, and when those differences matter for particular products will be better positioned to make formulation, labeling, and distribution decisions before a compliance deadline forces them to do so.