2026 California Regulatory Update – Food, Beverage, Textiles and Beyond

By: Anne Marie Ellis, Naz Etemad, and Lauren Kilger

This article provides a concise 2026 update on emerging litigation and regulatory trends affecting food, beverage, textiles, cosmetics, and consumer goods, with a particular focus on California‑led developments. It examines ultra‑processed foods as an expanding area of consumer protection and public nuisance litigation, highlights new California state laws addressing chemical additives, allergens, and surveys significant regulatory changes governing PFAS, cosmetics ingredients, textile recovery, plastics, and children’s products. Together, these developments illustrate a broader shift toward heightened chemical regulation, extended producer responsibility, and increased compliance obligations across consumer‑facing industries.

I. Ultra-Processed Foods – The Next Battleground

Over the past few years, litigation has targeted highly or ultra-processed foods. Ultra-processed foods are often defined as industrial formulations with five or more ingredients, including additives not used in home kitchens. For example, many “ready-to-eat” foods may be classified as “ultra-processed.” Lawmakers have taken the conversation around food quality a step further by creating laws phasing out ultra-processed foods. California has spearheaded this initiative by recently defining ultra-processed foods as those that (1) contain a substance with technical effect, such as stabilizers, thickeners, colors, and flavoring agents and (2) contain either (a) high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or (b) a nonnutritive sweetener. Ultra-processed foods represent a new frontier of litigation challenging its alleged links to chronic health conditions like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

Litigation Surrounding Ultra Processed Foods

San Francisco City Attorney Files Suit in California State Court – People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., et al.

In December 2025, the City of San Francisco filed a closely watched lawsuit against several major food and beverage manufacturers in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that ultra-processed foods were marketed to downplay or conceal alleged health risks while encouraging overconsumption. The complaint asserts claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and for public nuisance while alleging that food and beverage manufacturers created a public health crisis in San Francisco.

In January 2025, a single-plaintiff case filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., Inc., No. CV 25-377, 2025 WL 2447793 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025) highlighted the addictive nature of ultra-processed foods and the link between ultra-processed foods and negative health outcomes. Plaintiff’s complaint included tort and statute-based claims, including, but not limited to, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation, violation of state consumer protection laws, and conspiracy. The court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety based on the lack of specificity in the allegations. However, this case is only one example, among many, of the heightened scrutiny surrounding ultra-processed foods.

Though public nuisance litigation as a means to challenge ultra-processed foods is an emerging trend, its use to address public safety concerns is not new. For example, the doctrine has been used as a basis to file lawsuits in response to the opioid crisis, the fossil fuel industry, and the tobacco industry. The San Francisco action is indicative of this emerging trend, and it represents a more aggressive effort by a municipality to hold manufacturers accountable for alleged health impacts associated with a broad category of food products, rather than for discrete defects or labeling violations.

California Laws Are Filling the Gap in the Absence of Federal Regulations

The FDA has not adopted a formal definition of “highly” or “ultra-processed” foods, and federal agencies continue to study the issue. This regulatory gap has coincided with increased legislative activity at the state and local level addressing food labeling, marketing, and nutrition standards. Not surprisingly, California has stepped in to fill the void as the first state in the nation to enact a statutory definition for “ultra-processed foods” under AB 1264, which affects food and beverage companies that sell to schools, with restrictions starting in 2028 and full implementation starting in 2035. Looking at the year ahead, we recommend that businesses focus their compliance efforts on the additions of AB 418, AB 2316, and SB 68 (outlined below).

Effective January 1, 2027, this law prohibits persons from manufacturing, selling, delivering, distributing, or holding a food product that contains (1) brominated vegetable oil, (2) potassium bromate, (3) propylparaben, or (4) red dye 3.

The law allows the Attorney General and other local government attorneys to enforce this provision. Civil penalties for violations range up to $5,000 for the first violation and up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

Europe, Australia, and New Zealand have already banned red dye 3 in all food products other than maraschino cherries. The United States followed suit in January 2025 when the FDA revoked authorization for the use of red dye 3 in food and ingested drugs, demonstrating the general shift away from synthetic food dyes.

Effective December 31, 2027, this law prohibits schools from serving and selling foods, excluding foods provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), containing synthetic food dye additives associated with health harms, including red 40 and titanium dioxide. This prohibition applies to foods served or sold on campuses, although there is a carve-out for food items sold as part of a school fundraising event. Compliance will be monitored by the California Department of Education, although the statute does not specify penalties.

Effective July 1, 2026, food facilities with 20+ locations that sell food to consumers must provide written notification of major food allergens that the food facility knows or reasonably should know are ingredients in each menu item.

Major food allergens are: (1) milk; (2) eggs; (3) fish; (4) crustacean shellfish; (5) tree nuts; (6) wheat; (7) peanuts; (8) soybeans; (9) sesame; and (10) ingredients that contain protein from these listed foods. This must be on menus or in a digital format (with a non-digital backup) and pictograms are encouraged. The law permits enforcement agencies to verify a food facilities’ allergen disclosures to evaluate non-compliance, although the statute does not specify penalties.

II. Updates and New Regulations Concerning Textiles, Cosmetics, and Consumer Goods

AB 1817—which prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and sale of textile articles containing regulated PFAS—was the subject of a 2024 Buchalter article. However, beginning January 1, 2027, the definition of “regulated PFAS” changes; the original threshold level of 100 parts per million, as measured in total organic fluorine, decreases to 50 parts per million. Manufacturers of textile articles must provide certificates of compliance to downstream entities certifying that the products do not contain regulated PFAS. This does not apply to outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions, which is exempt until January 1, 2028; however, a disclosure “made with PFAS chemicals” is required until then.  California is one of many states regulating PFAS in consumer goods, although it provides more clarity with the ppm limits than most states.

AB 60 (“the Musk Reduction Act”) prohibits specific intentionally-added ingredients in cosmetic products. The first provision of the law went into effect in 2025, which banned the manufacture, delivery, and sale of cosmetics products containing specific intentionally-added ingredients, including, but not limited to: methylene glycol; mercury; formaldehyde; and PFAS and their salts.

On January 1, 2027, this list will expand to prohibit specified, intentionally-added fragrance substances (e.g., musk ambrette and lily aldehyde), synthetic dyes (e.g., basic green 1 and basic blue 7), and other ingredients (e.g., styrene and listed boron substances) in cosmetic products. Also effective January 1, 2027, the law prohibits a cosmetic product containing more than 1.4 percent of musk ketone in fine fragrance products, 0.56 percent in eau de toilette, 0 percent in oral products, and 0.042 percent in all other products. California moved to ban musk ketone due to the chemical’s disruption to the endocrine system and to align itself with safety regulations promulgated by the European Union.

SB 707 (“the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024”) creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the management of apparel and textile articles. By March 1, 2026, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery will approve a Producers Responsibility Organization (“PRO”). Following its approval, all producers of covered products must join the PRO by July 1, 2026. The PRO must develop and receive approval for a plan for the collection, transportation, repair, sorting, recycling, and the safe and proper management of covered products in California.

A “covered product” includes apparel and textile articles. “Apparel” includes all clothing and accessory items intended for regular, formal, or outdoor wear. The definition of “textile articles” is specifically limited to the following products: blankets, curtains, fabric window coverings, knitted and woven accessories, towels, tapestries, bedding, tablecloths, napkins, linens, and pillows. Notably, the definition of “textile articles” is much narrower than that under AB 1817, which regulates PFAS in apparel and textiles.

Under the law, a “producer” is a person who manufactures apparel or textile articles, and who owns or is the licensee of the brand or trademark under which the product is sold, offered for sale, or distributed into California. Though the definition expands and narrows with additional caveats, a producer does not include a seller with less than $1,000,000 in annual aggregate global turnover, adjusted annually pursuant to the California Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for all items.

Businesses do not need to take any action yet. However, once the Department approves a PRO and the PRO completes an approved plan or commencing July 1, 2030—whichever is sooner—a producer will be subject to steep penalties unless (1) the producer is a participant in the PRO and (2) all covered products are accounted for in the plan. Noncompliance risks administrative penalties of up to $10,000 per day or $50,000 per day if the violation is intentional or knowing.

Requiring producers to join PROs is not novel. For example, California’s SB 54—or the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act—required producers of single-use packaging and food service ware to join a PRO. Recently, however, CalRecycle withdrew proposed regulations under SB 54, though this does not change the statutory deadlines for compliance.

Effective January 1, 2026, this law revises the definitions of California’s existing restrictions on single-use carryout bags. A store may make available for purchase “recycled paper bags,” but only if sold for ten cents or more. A “recycled paper bag” is a paper carry out bag that (1) is generally accepted for curbside recycling and (2) displays the manufacturer, the country where it was manufactured, and the percentage of postconsumer content. Effective January 1, 2028, this definition is narrowed; a “recycled paper bag” must contain a minimum of 50% postconsumer recycled materials.

Beginning December 31, 2026, manufacturers of disposable tampons or pad products must maintain information regarding the concentrations of (1) lead, (2) arsenic, (3) cadmium, and (4) zinc in their products.

Upon request from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), the manufacturer must provide technical documentation, including test methods and analytical test results, to assess the concentration of the above listed chemicals in their disposable tampon and pad products. The manufacturer bears the costs of testing the products and DTSC may publish the results.

Effective January 1, 2026, no person shall manufacture, sell, or distribute any juvenile’s feeding, sucking, or teething product that contains any form of bisphenol above the practical quantitation limit (“PQL”) set by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. A juvenile is an individual younger than twelve years of age.

The law authorizes DTSC or the Attorney General to enforce this regulation; violations are punishable by civil penalties up to $5,000 for the first violation and $10,000 for subsequent violations.

Companies today face a growing patchwork of laws that regulate chemicals in products—from California’s Prop 65 to similar state measures and federal standards. These rules cover a wide range of items, including food, cosmetics, textiles, and children’s products, and aim to protect diverse populations with different health needs. Because requirements vary by state and product category, businesses must stay alert, ensure supply chain transparency, and adopt flexible compliance strategies to manage risk and maintain consumer trust.

This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.