Food companies have come under significant scrutiny regarding their ingredients, particularly from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the broader “Make America Healthy Again” movement. This initiative identifies synthetic dyes as a leading factor in chronic diseases and childhood obesity. Critics argue that food dyes may lead to behavioral issues in children, increase cancer risk, and promote overeating by enhancing the visual appeal of foods. In Europe, products containing these dyes are required to have warning labels indicating they “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary emphasized at a recent press conference that “America’s children are sick and suffering,” labeling these dyes as “a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals.” However, the FDA’s recent announcement does not implement a complete ban, disappointing many food and health advocates who expected more assertive measures. Dr. Peter G. Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, remarked that the FDA is only prohibiting “two rarely used dyes” while largely depending on voluntary commitments from an “unspecified fraction” of the industry. He expressed hope for Kennedy and Makary’s efforts to eliminate these unnecessary and harmful dyes from the food supply but cautioned that history shows reliance on voluntary compliance from the food industry often leads to failures.
The decision to phase out petroleum-based dyes aligns with increasing momentum for policies aimed at eliminating artificial colors at the state level. Recently, West Virginia enacted a law restricting seven artificial dyes in food products sold within the state, with several other states proposing similar bills concerning food additives, including artificial colors, according to the Environmental Working Group. Additionally, food companies have been pressured by consumers; for instance, WK Kellogg Co faced protests at its headquarters over the past year, with consumers urging the removal of dyes from products such as Froot Loops.
Kennedy, who previously met with industry leaders from Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, and General Mills to discuss the removal of synthetic colors from their supply chains, stated that the industry “came to the table” to avoid a fragmented set of state regulations. “Those bans have given us leverage to make demands of food companies,” he noted. “We have them on the run now. And we are going to win this battle.”
Various sectors of the food industry have indicated their intention to comply with the new policy. The International Dairy Foods Association has pledged to voluntarily phase out artificial colors from products sold to schools by the 2026-2027 school year. Meanwhile, the National Confectioners Association affirmed that U.S. candy makers will “continue to follow regulatory guidance from the authorities in this space, because consumer safety is our chief responsibility and priority.”
Despite the industry’s apparent readiness to comply, it emphasizes that artificial dyes have undergone rigorous examination by regulatory agencies and are supported by peer-reviewed scientific research. The Consumer Brands Association, representing major food companies like Kellogg and Coca-Cola, asserted that these ingredients are safe, and the policy changes aim to reduce consumer confusion amid a growing number of state laws. “We appreciate that the administration has reasserted their leadership in response to the myriad of state activity in the food regulation space,” said Consumer Brands President and CEO Melissa Hockstad. “A state patchwork of differing laws creates confusion for consumers, limits access to everyday goods, deters innovation, and increases costs at the grocery store.”
Transitioning away from artificial colors, however, is neither easy nor inexpensive. The International Association of Color Manufacturers, which represents both natural and synthetic dye producers, warned that bans will pose new challenges for food manufacturers, as replacing dyes with natural alternatives “is not a simple swap.” The association stated that overcoming the various challenges posed by a non-scientific mandate—including production hurdles, technical limitations, supply chain constraints, increased quality control needs, higher costs, and regulatory inconsistencies—could take more than five years, if not an entire generation.
Sean McBride, founder of DSM Strategic Communications, criticized the policy for disrupting years of science-based decision-making and for potentially increasing costs for the food industry without enhancing health outcomes. “Disruption for disruption’s sake is not a viable strategy when it comes to public health,” McBride remarked in an email to Food Dive. “Like Alice in Wonderland, food companies must now learn to operate in an upside-down regulatory world that subjugates due diligence and rational decision-making to the exercise of raw administrative authority.” In response to these changes, some companies are exploring alternatives, such as incorporating calcium citrate zinc, to ensure their products remain compliant while still appealing to consumers.