California Food Safety Act: What It Banned and Why It Matters for Litigation

California's Food Safety Act (AB 418), signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2023, banned four food additives from being sold or manufactured for sale in California: Red Dye 3 (erythrosine), brominated vegetable oil (BVO), potassium bromate, and propylparaben. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, giving manufacturers time to reformulate. It is the strictest state-level food additive law in American history.

What the Law Bans and Why

California's legislature cited concerns that each of the four banned substances had been flagged by international regulatory bodies or toxicology research as potentially harmful, even though the FDA had not yet acted to remove them from the United States food supply. The law was specifically modeled on the European Union's more precautionary regulatory approach, which had banned or severely restricted all four of these substances years earlier.

Here is the status of each banned substance and the underlying concern:

• Red Dye 3 (erythrosine): The FDA made a cancer finding under the Delaney Clause in 1990 and banned the dye in cosmetics but did not act on food for 34 years. The FDA finally revoked food authorization in January 2025, before the California law took effect — but California's action reflected the same long-standing concern that the federal agency had failed to act.
• Brominated vegetable oil (BVO): Used as an emulsifier in citrus-flavored sodas, BVO contains bromine, which can accumulate in body tissue. The FDA moved to revoke BVO authorization in 2023, citing animal toxicity studies. BVO has been banned in Europe and Japan for decades. California's ban anticipated the federal action that followed.
• Potassium bromate: Used in bread baking to improve the texture and rise of dough, potassium bromate is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It has been banned in the EU, Canada, Brazil, China, and many other countries. The FDA still permitted its use in the US under a "technical effect" rationale, a gap California explicitly addressed.
• Propylparaben: Used as a preservative in some foods, propylparaben is classified as an endocrine disruptor — meaning it may interfere with hormone function. The EU banned it from food products in 2006 over these concerns. California's ban brings state law in line with European standards.

How the California Law Differs from Federal Standards

Federal food additive law operates under a "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) standard that has been criticized for decades for allowing substances with contested safety records to remain in the food supply without updated review. Once a substance is approved, the burden falls on the FDA to revoke approval — a process that can take decades, as Red Dye 3 illustrated. California's law flips that approach: if a substance is banned in major international markets or has credible safety concerns, it is banned in California regardless of federal approval status.

This creates a significant practical pressure on national manufacturers. Because major food companies sell products nationwide and do not typically manufacture separate California-specific formulations, many are simply removing banned substances from all products. The California ban functions as a de facto national regulatory action through market pressure. Companies that have already moved to remove BVO from citrus sodas or Red Dye 3 from candy products are responding in large part to California's market influence, not just the eventually-coinciding FDA actions.

The Litigation Relevance: What Manufacturers Knew

In food additive product liability litigation, California's law is relevant as evidence of the gap between available safety knowledge and manufacturer behavior. Plaintiffs can argue: potassium bromate was banned in Europe in 1990, classified as a possible carcinogen by IARC, and California banned it in 2023 — but manufacturers continued using it in US products sold to California consumers throughout that period. That continued use after known international prohibition and documented safety concerns is the foundation of a failure-to-warn argument.

The same argument applies to propylparaben (banned in EU food products in 2006, continued in US use for 17 more years after California's law) and to BVO (banned in multiple countries for decades before US action). The international regulatory record creates a timeline of available knowledge that plaintiffs can use to argue manufacturers should have acted sooner.

What the Compliance Timeline Means for Consumers

The January 1, 2027 effective date means that products containing the four banned substances may continue to be sold in California until that date. After January 1, 2027, manufacturing or selling food products containing these substances for California distribution is prohibited, with civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day for violations and up to $10,000 for intentional violations.

The law does not address historical exposure — it only governs future sales. Consumers who ate products containing these substances before the effective date do not have a state law claim based on the California Food Safety Act itself. The litigation relevance is evidentiary: the law establishes that these substances are harmful enough for California to prohibit, which supports negligence and failure-to-warn theories in personal injury cases based on past exposure.

States Following California's Lead

California's food safety law has prompted similar legislation in other states. Several state legislatures have introduced bills addressing food additive safety, with varying scope and focus. This legislative momentum mirrors the pattern seen in other toxic exposure areas: state legislative action often precedes or accelerates federal regulatory action. Families who believe they have been harmed by food additives should be aware that the legal and regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly.

How to Document Your Situation

If you are concerned about long-term exposure to any of the four banned substances, useful documentation steps include: identifying which products you or your family consumed regularly and for how long; checking ingredient labels for the specific substances (potassium bromate on bread product labels; BVO in citrus sodas listed as "brominated vegetable oil"; propylparaben in product preservative ingredients); and gathering any medical records for diagnoses that may be relevant to your exposure history.

Because food additive litigation is at an earlier stage of development than other mass tort areas, legal evaluation is the essential first step. An attorney who handles food product liability or toxic tort claims can assess whether your specific diagnosis and exposure history create a viable claim under current law.

Related Pages on This Site

• Red Dye 3 FDA ban explained
• Food dyes and ADHD in children
• Check your eligibility