How Food Companies Navigate a Maze of State Food Laws: Insights from a New Study
In a bold move, West Virginia recently banned seven synthetic food dyes from products sold within its borders. With that, it joined a growing wave of U.S. states setting their own standards on food safety, ingredient bans, and labeling requirements. For food companies, this trend is creating a tangled web of rules that vary from state to state—and with it, a new set of strategic decisions.
A groundbreaking study from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign shines light on how food manufacturers are adapting to this shifting regulatory landscape—and what influences their responses.
“States have significant constitutional authority to protect public health,” explains Dr. Maria Kalaitzandonakes, an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics. “But when states start setting their own food rules, it can create a confusing patchwork that’s tough for national food companies to navigate.”
Kalaitzandonakes and her co-author, Dr. William Ridley, designed a framework to categorize the main strategies companies use to handle these state-specific regulations. They then interviewed manufacturers to see how theory matched up with reality—and found striking alignment.
Four Paths for Navigating Regulation
The study outlines four main approaches food producers take:
-
Nationwide Reformulation
Companies update their products to meet the strictest state standard—then sell that version everywhere. -
Dual Product Lines
Some firms create separate versions for regulated and unregulated states, though this adds operational complexity. -
Market Withdrawal
If a market is too small or costly to comply with, companies might stop selling there altogether. -
Non-Compliance
In cases where enforcement is weak or penalties are low, some firms risk continuing with the original product.
Case Studies in Action
The research team applied their model to real-world situations:
-
Vermont’s GMO Labeling Law (2014):
Many companies opted to label products nationwide, even though Vermont’s market is small. Others temporarily pulled out of the state. -
Illinois’ Sesame Allergen Labeling Law (2019):
Given the low enforcement pressure, some manufacturers simply ignored the rule. -
California’s Food Additive Ban (2023):
With California’s large market and significant influence, most companies chose to reformulate products entirely rather than risk exclusion or maintain dual systems.
But with more states, like West Virginia, introducing their own bans—each with different timelines, ingredient lists, and exceptions—the cost and complexity of compliance is growing fast.
“When states regulate the same issue differently, the lack of consistency makes it incredibly challenging for businesses,” Ridley notes. “It’s not just about one law—it’s about managing a moving target.”
Will the Federal Government Step In?
Interestingly, state-level rules often lay the groundwork for broader national standards. Vermont’s early push on GMO labeling, for example, eventually led to a federal mandate. Likewise, sesame was added to the national list of allergens after state pressure.
“State regulation can be a catalyst for federal action,” Kalaitzandonakes adds. “We’re seeing more advocacy aimed at using state laws to prompt industry changes and push for national reform.”
As food regulation continues to evolve across states, the pressure on manufacturers to adapt—and potentially influence federal policy—will only intensify.
Source:
Kalaitzandonakes, M. & Ridley, W. (2025). Food Manufacturers’ Decision Making Under Varying State Regulation, Journal of Food Distribution Research.
