More than a dozen states have passed laws that restrict certain chemicals in food. Most apply to food served in schools, and a few may apply to food sold in stores, according to the Environmental Working Group, which published its argument on November 2, 2026. The fight is over whether a state can set the rule first and whether that rule stays local. The wider contamination picture shows why states have been moving on their own.
The industry argument
EWG reports that companies argue differing state laws make food manufacturing and distribution less efficient, and that this “patchwork” of requirements could make food more expensive. Major industry groups have backed a draft bill in Congress to block the state laws, EWG says.
EWG’s reply is about what companies do after a state acts. When one state raises the bar on what can go into a product, companies often change that product nationwide, so the benefit reaches consumers everywhere. EWG points to three earlier examples.
Three earlier examples
Flame retardants in furniture. Before 2013, EWG says most furniture sold in the US contained flame retardant chemicals in its upholstery foam. Research linked those chemicals to cancer, hormone disruption, and attention and learning deficits in children, EWG writes, without providing meaningful fire safety. California began updating its testing standards and phasing the chemicals out. Chemtura sued to overturn the rules and lost, and the new standards took full effect in 2015. In 2020, Congress adopted the same standards as a federal requirement through the Safer Occupancy Furniture Flammability Act.
BPA in baby bottles. Minnesota became the first state to make baby bottles free of BPA in 2009, according to EWG. Ten more states followed with their own restrictions on BPA in children’s products. Under pressure from state lawmakers and attorneys general, major manufacturers removed BPA nationwide. The FDA formally ended its use in baby bottles and sippy cups by 2012, and in 2013 it ended the use of BPA in formula packaging.
Food additives in California. The California Food Safety Act bans four additives from food sold in the state starting in 2027: Red Dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, and propylparaben. The Consumer Brands Association and other industry groups opposed the bill. The National Confectioners Association called the law part of a “patchwork of inconsistent state requirements created by legislative fiat that will increase food costs,” EWG quotes it as saying.
What has happened since
EWG says that by 2024, multiple states had introduced similar bans. In early 2025, the FDA revoked authorization of Red No. 3 in food. The same year, major manufacturers such as Kraft Heinz and General Mills began announcing plans to reformulate products without artificial colors. EWG also says no company has announced planned price increases tied to those changes, which cuts against the cost argument.
What to watch
- The draft FRESH Act. EWG says the bill would block state bans or restrictions on food chemicals. The text the packet captured cuts off before the bill’s full scope, so check the bill’s actual language and status before treating its reach as settled.
- Reformulation beyond the named brands. EWG names Kraft Heinz and General Mills. The packet does not say how many other manufacturers have followed.
- The 2027 California date. If EWG’s pattern holds, companies that reformulate for California may do so nationwide. That is EWG’s prediction from past cases, not a confirmed outcome for these additives.
A note on sourcing
This piece draws on an advocacy group’s account of the industry position. The packet did not include statements from the industry groups themselves, so the cost argument appears here as EWG describes it. The historical examples are EWG’s summaries too, and a reader who wants the original records should check the state and federal documents directly.
Food chemicals and farm contamination are different problems, but both come down to who sets the rules and who pays when they fail. For a closer look at contamination on the farm side, read how Maine is handling PFAS on farms after biosolids use and what Iowa private-well tests can and cannot show.
