Texas' 44-Ingredient Warning Label Is Paused: What's Next

AUSTIN, Texas - On February 11, 2026, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction halting Texas from enforcing Senate Bill 25's mandatory warning label on 44 food additives, including antioxidant BHT. Meanwhile, the FDA continues its post-market chemical safety reassessment of BHT as of September 13, 2026.

Key takeaways

• Texas Senate Bill 25 requires a front-of-package warning on 44 ingredients, including BHT, scheduled for January 1, 2027.
• On February 11, 2026, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction protecting plaintiff trade associations under the First Amendment.
• The FDA continues permitting BHT while actively reassessing its food safety under the federal chemical framework.
• The European Food Safety Authority maintains an acceptable daily intake of 0.25 mg/kg body weight rather than a food ban.

What happened

On June 22, 2025, Texas enacted Senate Bill 25, establishing statutory requirements for packaged food manufacturers selling products in the state. Section 9 of the legislation requires packaged foods containing any of 44 listed ingredients to display a mandatory front-of-package statement. The statute specifies: "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."

In response, major food and beverage industry trade organizations filed a federal challenge. The plaintiffs included the American Beverage Association, the Consumer Brands Association, the National Confectioners Association, and FMI (The Food Industry Association).

On February 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction. The federal court enjoined Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from enforcing Section 9 against the plaintiff trade groups and their member companies. The court determined that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding their First Amendment compelled speech claims, while reserving judgment on statutory vagueness and preemption arguments.

What changed in the regulations?

The immediate practical result of the February 11, 2026 ruling is a pause on enforcement preparations for affected manufacturers. State regulators had continued drafting administrative guidelines during the dispute. However, the court order stops the state from imposing the January 1, 2027 mandate on plaintiff members until a final decision is reached.

The Texas statutory list encompasses 44 distinct substances commonly found in packaged food manufacturing. In addition to BHT, the list includes certified colors, bleached flour, azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), potassium bromate, propylparaben, and titanium dioxide. Additive discussions continue across the country, as seen when the FDA reassesses ADA dough conditioner: what it means for bread and examines synthetic ingredients.

At the federal level, direct food additive rules remain in force. Under 21 CFR Part 172, the FDA authorizes BHT as an antioxidant in cereals, snack foods, and fats. Concurrently, the agency is conducting an active post-market chemical safety reassessment of BHT in food and food-contact materials. The FDA closed an expanded public request for information in August 2026 while keeping current authorizations in effect during the scientific evaluation.

Who is affected by the ruling?

The Texas statute targets food processors, packagers, and grocery retailers distributing products in the state. Modern food distribution relies heavily on regional and national supply networks, meaning individual state labeling laws often trigger packaging adjustments across nationwide runs. However, the legal scope of the February 11, 2026 preliminary injunction specifically shields the four named plaintiff associations and their participating member companies.

For food brands and manufacturers that do not belong to the plaintiff trade associations, legal uncertainty remains. Because the statute has not been permanently struck down on final merits, non-member businesses must closely track proceedings before the statutory January 1, 2027 date.

BHT is widely used across packaged food categories to inhibit lipid oxidation and preserve freshness. Common food products containing BHT and related targeted additives include:

• Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals and grain snacks.
• Packaged potato chips, corn chips, and fried snack foods.
• Pre-packaged baked goods, cake mixes, and shelf-stable pastries.
• Chewing gums, shortening, and animal fats.
• Flavored drink powders and confectionery items.

What it means for shoppers in stores?

For shoppers in Texas and across the country, grocery shelves will not see sudden warning labels on major national brands in the near term. The preliminary injunction prevents the state from requiring warning boxes on January 1, 2027, for plaintiff members while the court considers full legal arguments.

Consumers looking to monitor specific preservatives like BHT must continue reading standard ingredient lists. Federal rules require manufacturers to list BHT by name on product labels, often paired with a functional declaration such as "preservative" or "to preserve freshness."

International regulatory standards provide helpful context for the Texas statute. While Texas SB 25 treats these additives under a single broad warning, foreign jurisdictions frequently apply quantitative tolerances rather than complete bans. For instance, sucralose re-evaluated: what EFSA's 2026 safety review found shows how international agencies update usage thresholds through systematic reviews. In Europe, food additive regulations maintain an acceptable daily intake of 0.25 mg per kilogram of body weight for BHT as food additive E 321.

In personal care, foreign authorities focus on specific concentration thresholds. The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety assessed BHT for potential endocrine activity, leading European and UK authorities to establish limits of 0.1% in toothpaste and 0.8% in general cosmetic formulations while permitting continued safe use.

The background of BHT use

BHT is a synthetic, fat-soluble phenolic antioxidant synthesized from p-cresol and isobutylene. It acts as a free radical scavenger, halting lipid peroxidation in unsaturated oils and preserving food quality over extended storage. It has been used widely in commercial food manufacturing since the mid-twentieth century.

Toxicological evaluations have investigated how high BHT intakes influence mammalian biology. Animal feeding studies show that elevated BHT doses induce microsomal enzymes in the liver. This enzyme stimulation can increase total liver mass and alter steroid hormone breakdown. However, at normal human dietary levels, regulatory safety margins remain protective.

According to evaluations from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, BHT is designated as Group 3, meaning it is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans due to inadequate clinical data and conflicting animal evidence. Similarly, a safety review by Health Canada concluded that typical dietary exposure does not present human health risks under current usage limits.

State legislative activity expanded as lawmakers sought to address ultra-processed foods and chemical additives. Texas SB 25 became one of the most visible state-level initiatives, grouping synthetic food dyes, flour bleaching agents, and preservatives into a required disclosure framework.

What to watch next in food regulation?

Several upcoming regulatory and legal milestones will influence the future labeling of BHT and other food additives:

• District Court Merits Decision: The federal court in Texas will address summary judgment or proceed to trial on First Amendment compelled speech and federal preemption claims.

• FDA Reassessment Results: Following its August 2026 data collection milestone, the FDA will evaluate incoming intake research to determine whether to revise existing tolerances under 21 CFR Part 172.

• State Legislative Proposals: Additional states are considering additive disclosure measures, creating potential variations across state retail markets.

Current scientific evidence cannot establish causal long-term health risks in humans from low-level, cumulative dietary exposure to BHT across diverse consumer populations. As court cases and agency reviews proceed, reading standard ingredient statements remains the most practical way to evaluate packaged foods.

Related

• In-N-Out Is on the FDA Dye Tracker: What Changed
• FDA Dye Tracker Now Says End of 2027: Who's Done
• Which Food Additives Are Banned in Which US State