Insight

What’s on the Menu for 2026: Legal Trends in the Food & Beverage Industry

2025年12月10日

Federal, state, and private actions are accelerating across color additives, labeling and packaging, heavy metals, ultraprocessed foods, and insurance preparedness. As the regulatory landscape continues to rapidly evolve, companies that proactively audit product claims, harmonize disclosures, and pressure-test insurance programs will be best positioned for 2026 and beyond.

The following key takeaways cover some of the highlights from our recent webinar on the legal trends in the food and beverage industry.

Color Additives: Federal Momentum Meets State Acceleration

Federal initiatives are expanding with the US Food and Drug Administration revoking FD&C Red No. 3 and planning phased bans of petroleum-based synthetic dyes while authorizing additional natural color additives, with compliance timelines extending through 2027 and possibly beyond.

At the state level, California, Utah, and West Virginia have enacted restrictions on dyes in foods, including in school settings, with divergent effective dates and substance lists.

Enforcement has been intensifying with state attorneys general (AGs) negotiating voluntary removals and pursuing deceptive-marketing investigations, while private plaintiffs test “clean-label” and “homemade” price-premium theories.

Labeling & Packaging: PFAS, Recycling Claims, and EPR Fees

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) statutes in states such as California, Oregon, Maine, and Minnesota shift recycling cost burdens to producers and impose complex reporting duties through producer responsibility organizations.

Litigation risk is evolving with plaintiffs’ “recyclable” or “natural ingredients” claims being tested, most recently rejected where migratory PFAS were not “ingredients,” underscoring the importance of clear labeling and compliance documentation.

Heavy Metals: Heightened Scrutiny and Class Exposure

Regulators and AGs (notably in Texas) are investigating baby food products for alleged heavy-metal content, echoing federal reviews of children’s nutrition. Litigation trends include multidistrict proceedings alleging autism and neurological harms and economic-loss claims tied to nondisclosure of metal levels.

Retail and supply chain exposure is expanding, and downstream sellers face risk from upstream compliance gaps, emphasizing the need for contractual diligence and supplier controls.

Ultraprocessed Foods: From Policy Definitions to New Theories

The FDA is preparing a formal ultraprocessed foods (UPF) definition encompassing additives, emulsifiers, and preservatives, which is likely to influence labeling, procurement, and marketing standards.

At the same time, new complaints analogize UPFs to mass tort models, alleging addiction-style marketing or health risk concealment; early dismissals have not deterred filings. Future suits may target specific ingredients or populations, particularly children, combining economic-loss and personal injury claims.

State False Claims Act Risk for Government Food Purchases

State AGs are increasingly attentive to False Claims Act theories where food and beverage companies interface with government programs:

  • In cases of government contracts and subsidies where a company supplies food products or services under government contracts, such as school lunch programs, correctional facilities, or the military, or seeks government payments, subsidies, or tax credits, there is potential exposure under state false claims acts. A company may face challenges if it submits invoices for products or ingredients that do not meet contractual specifications or applicable state restrictions on ingredients, colors, or packaging.
  • Interaction with ingredient and packaging bans could arise as states adopt laws banning certain ingredients or plastic packaging. AGs can rely on their police powers to protect public health and safety by seeking court orders halting the sale of noncompliant products and imposing daily penalties. Where those products are purchased with public funds, noncompliance can also be framed as a false claims issue, particularly if the products are represented as meeting state nutrition, safety, or “healthy” standards.
  • State-level “Make [State] Healthy Again” initiatives and federal messaging have urged AGs to use UDAP and state FCA authority to address chemicals and additives in school lunches and pursue companies that deceptively market products as “healthy.” This creates a dual risk for regulatory and public health scrutiny of ingredients and colors and potential FCA theories targeting invoices submitted for foods that allegedly fail to meet contractual or statutory requirements for school nutrition and safety.

Companies participating in government food programs should closely align contract specifications, ingredient choices, labeling, and internal documentation to minimize the risk that ingredient or packaging issues become the basis for FCA claims.

Gaps in Insurance Preparedness

Coverage mapping should match exposures across commercial general liability, pollution, product-recall, D&O/E&O, property, and supply chain policies. Immediate response protocols (e.g., notice, record preservation, privilege coordination) are critical at the outset of complaints.

In addition, emerging triggers such as PFAS/microplastics, reformulation costs, and EPR disputes may activate nontraditional policies, making early broker and counsel engagement essential.

Looking Ahead

There is the potential for more federal–state coordination on ingredients, municipal enforcement in packaging and recycling, and private suits resembling environmental or mass tort models. Organizations that align marketing with science, harmonize disclosures, and prewire insurance coverage will better manage volatility and protect brand equity as regulation, enforcement, and litigation continue to evolve.

Stay Informed

Visit our state attorneys general practice page and register for upcoming webinars in our comprehensive State Attorneys General Program Series, which provides timely insights and practical guidance on actions taken by AGs and other political subdivisions in response to changes in federal regulations and enforcement.

Read the other Insights in this series: