On February 5, 2016, Mars, Incorporated made a significant pledge: it would eliminate artificial colors from its entire range of human food products within five years. “The task of removing all artificial colors from our human food portfolio is a substantial challenge that will require time and diligent effort,” stated Grant F. Reid, the President and CEO, in a press release announcing the initiative. “Our consumers are our priority, and they have voiced their preferences. If it’s beneficial for them, it’s beneficial for Mars.” Mars’ product lineup features popular items like Skittles, known for its slogan “Taste the Rainbow,” as well as Starburst and M&Ms. However, Mars wasn’t alone in making such commitments. In June 2015, General Mills pledged to eliminate artificial colors and flavors from its cereals, including the vibrant Trix and the colorful Lucky Charms. A blog post about this commitment indicated the company aimed to have 90% of its cereals free from artificial ingredients by the end of 2016. Kellogg also made a similar promise; during an investor call in August 2015, then-North America President Paul Norman announced the company’s goal of removing all artificial colors and flavors from its cereals, including Froot Loops and Apple Jacks, by 2019.
Transitioning these vividly colored products to natural alternatives would showcase the quality and functionality of contemporary colorings while moving towards clean labels made with ingredients that consumers can understand. These decisions aligned with global consumer trends at the time, as a January 2015 Nielsen report on healthy eating indicated that 42% of consumers worldwide considered it very important for products to contain no artificial colors (though only 29% in North America shared this view).
Despite these ambitious goals, none of the companies succeeded in meeting their original commitments regarding color removal. The deadlines passed without fulfillment, and the most colorful products in their portfolios continued to derive their vibrant hues from synthetic food dyes. The reasons for abandoning these pledges varied but often centered on common themes. Companies claimed that consumers preferred products without artificial colors, yet subsequent research indicated otherwise. Natural colors did not perform similarly to their artificial counterparts, leading consumers to shy away from previously vibrant products that now appeared dull. Consumer advocates maintain that there is indeed a desire for fewer artificial colors in food. “It’s extremely disappointing,” remarked Lisa Lefferts, a senior scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). “I believe if they truly wanted to honor their commitments, they could have.”
CSPI has been advocating for the ban of artificial colors since 2008, formally petitioning the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the matter. Their rationale stemmed from studies linking synthetic food dyes to behavioral issues in children since the 1970s, with evidence of these associations continuing to build. CSPI’s petition prompted a 2011 meeting of the FDA’s Food Advisory Committee regarding synthetic food dyes; however, this meeting resulted in no actionable steps, merely more studies that seemed to support CSPI’s stance. In 2016, Lefferts authored her own report on the issue.
While the federal government has yet to take action on food dyes, California lawmakers have begun addressing the issue. A bill proposed in 2017 aimed to require labeling for products containing artificial colors, which subsequently led to a nearly $500,000 allocation for a comprehensive study investigating the link between artificial food dyes and children’s behavior, published in April.
Most companies that committed to removing artificial colors let their self-imposed deadlines lapse without comment. Only Mars has issued a statement on its website to update its initial commitment. However, all companies informed Food Dive that a percentage of their products still contain artificial colors. Kellogg is closest to achieving its goal, with 90% of its cereals now using only natural colors. More than 85% of General Mills’ cereals have transitioned to natural colors and flavors. Mars has successfully removed artificial colors from all its dinner foods but has not prioritized the transition to natural colors for its confections sold in North America.
In its statement, Mars noted that following its 2016 commitment, the company invested considerable time and resources into developing new ingredients, seeking regulatory approvals, enhancing manufacturing processes, and examining consumer needs and expectations more closely. “In this process, we discovered that consumer expectations regarding food colors vary significantly across different markets and categories,” the website states. “This realization has prompted us to reassess our global strategy and identify more locally tailored approaches to address these differences.” In Europe, where consumer concerns about artificial colors are more pronounced and many such products require warning labels, Mars is focusing on eliminating all synthetic dyes. The company emphasizes on its website that several candy options worldwide are free of artificial dyes.
General Mills attempted high-profile transitions to natural colors, but these efforts faced challenges. In early 2016, the company revamped the packaging for Trix, Reese’s Puffs, Cocoa Puffs, Golden Grahams, Fruity Cheerios, Frosted Cheerios, and Chocolate Cheerios to highlight the absence of artificial colors and flavors. Initially, consumers reacted positively to this change. Then-CEO Ken Powell noted in a March 2016 earnings call that these seven cereal brands experienced a 6% increase in sales since the reformulations, rebounding from a 6% decrease the previous year.
However, the positive response was short-lived. By 2017, after receiving consumer complaints and witnessing sales declines, General Mills reintroduced Trix with artificial colors. It became clear that consumers “don’t all want the same thing,” company spokesperson Mike Siemienas told The Wall Street Journal at that time. He added that General Mills also struggled to find a natural color solution for Lucky Charms after investing considerable effort in the endeavor. “In consumer testing, none of the options were appealing, so we opted not to make any changes,” he stated in an email. “We have exhausted the current natural color options available.”
General Mills has shifted its focus away from the singular goal of removing artificial colors and flavors from its products. Siemienas mentioned that the company is now committed to meeting diverse consumer needs, which are not uniform across the board. They will continue to innovate and will update recipes when improvements are possible. General Mills already offers several cereals free from artificial colors and flavors, such as Cheerios, Chex, and Kix, and has launched cereals aimed at children that contain nutrients but no artificial colors, like Sesame Street Cereal. “Not every consumer wants the same thing, and not every product needs to be identical,” Siemienas emphasized. “It’s crucial to focus on the individuals who consume these products daily and ensure that any changes made align with their needs.”
Kellogg spokesperson Kris Bahner stated in an email that 90% of the company’s branded cereals, snack bars, and Eggo waffles do not contain artificial colors or flavors due to its commitment to natural reformulation. “We use artificial ingredients in some products to ensure the great taste and quality that consumers expect while still providing a wide variety of choices,” she explained. “We will continue to apply the best available science to ensure our foods are safe and transparently labeled.”
From these unmet commitments, it may seem that consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies have ceased to prioritize artificial colors. David Rigg, Global Food Marketing Director for Sensient Food Colors, disagreed with this assessment. “Approximately 80% of new products introduced in the U.S. — a trend that mirrors global patterns — utilize colors from natural sources,” Rigg stated. “What has occurred is that major CPGs have slowed down large-scale conversions.”
These conversions, where established products are reformulated to eliminate artificial colors, continue to be of interest to manufacturers, who initiate discussions with an awareness of existing limitations. However, when new products enter the market, consumers are less likely to notice if they appear different or are priced higher, Rigg noted. While artificial coloring primarily consists of combinations of six well-known synthetic dyes approved by the FDA, natural colors vary significantly in hue, functionality, and behavior. In many cases, natural alternatives can achieve a vibrancy comparable to synthetic dyes, and in some cases — such as for purple hues — natural options may even surpass artificial ones, Rigg stated.
The behavior of natural colors can differ by product type, potentially becoming less stable in foods or beverages with varying pH levels and reacting to light and heat. Rigg mentioned that Sensient has developed strategies to overcome some of these challenges, yet discussions with clients are highly dependent on the specific products, packaging, and desired effects of the dyes. For instance, he explained that a green icing made using turmeric-derived yellow may not remain stable in packaging with a clear window due to light exposure. The majority of Sensient’s color-related R&D focuses on improving the stability of greens and blues in various applications.
Cost is another factor when it comes to using natural colors. To enhance product vibrancy with natural alternatives, larger quantities are typically required, increasing costs. “Natural colors aren’t inherently expensive; however, synthetic dyes are incredibly cost-effective,” Rigg noted. “In most formulations — virtually all — synthetic colors comprise an insignificant portion of the total formulation cost. Transitioning to natural colors resembles the cost structure of flavors, which isn’t necessarily prohibitive but represents a significant leap from previous costs.”
As with other reformulations, Rigg pointed out that consumers may not understand why a product remade with natural colors would suddenly be more expensive. While some manufacturers may have previously employed similar strategies to mitigate consumer price increases when commodity prices rose — such as reducing package sizes — Rigg was unaware of any manufacturer that could justify a price increase solely based on the use of natural colors. Additionally, he noted that blues and greens are among the most expensive natural colors.
The efforts to develop natural colors are not solely confined to companies making food dyes. Mars funded a decade-long research project that discovered a natural blue colorant derived from red cabbage. Findings published in April in the journal Science Advances indicated that this color possesses properties nearly identical to the synthetic industry standard, FD&C Blue No. 1. However, this new blue is not yet ready for use in food, as Mars still needs to conduct product-specific testing and seek FDA approval.
While CPG companies have defended their retreat from natural color transitions by asserting that consumer concern is not as pressing, Rigg argued that the situation is more nuanced. “I would estimate that about 60% of consumers care and will modify their purchasing behavior,” he said. “However, if a product category addresses a need where consumers are not focused on issues like artificial colors, or if a consumer segment is indifferent, there is little motivation for change.”
As manufacturers evaluate their options, they face the prospect that legislators or regulators may compel them to act. California State Senator Bob Wieckowski has scrutinized artificial colors and their impact on consumers for years. Shortly after taking office, Wieckowski began collaborating with the California Council on Science & Technology’s Science Fellows program, which places Ph.D.-level scientists in various disciplines within state legislators’ offices.
Over the years, Wieckowski has engaged with several scientists who have expressed concerns about synthetic food dyes. Numerous independent studies have suggested a link between artificial food colors and behavioral issues in children and animals; however, the FDA and other U.S. regulators have yet to implement any policy changes. Meanwhile, international regulators, including those in Europe, have utilized this research to ban certain dyes from food and beverages and establish labeling requirements to warn consumers of potential negative effects of artificial dyes on children’s behavior. “When it comes to food dyes, we’ve never had labels, leaving consumers uninformed,” Wieckowski stated. “We discussed and developed the idea of implementing a warning label in 2017.”
Wieckowski’s bill aimed to mandate a label alerting consumers that synthetic dyes may cause behavioral problems or hyperactivity in children, but it did not pass into law. However, as a member of the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Wieckowski successfully appropriated nearly $500,000 for a comprehensive study examining the issue as part of the 2018 budget. This study, conducted by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a division of the state’s Environmental Protection Agency, was responsible for administering Proposition 65, which mandates warnings for chemicals that could cause cancer, birth defects, and other harm.
OEHHA embarked on a thorough, multi-year process, diving deep into the subject and having its findings peer-reviewed. The agency kicked off with a two-day symposium in 2019, inviting experts to discuss artificial colors and research. Subsequently, they conducted an extensive literature review and spent over a year drafting their findings, which consolidated all previous research into a single report. The draft underwent peer review and was opened for public comment before the final draft was published in April.
The primary conclusion drawn by OEHHA, according to Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs Melanie Marty, is that artificial colors in food can influence children’s behavior, a theme echoed throughout various prior studies. “The types of effects we’ve observed include hyperactivity, restlessness, and irritability, noted by both parents and teachers, as well as through objective measures like computer tests assessing children’s attention,” she explained. Studies involving animals exposed to synthetic dyes also indicated neurological effects, further reinforcing this conclusion.
Wieckowski deferred proposing his bill again until the study’s completion. He submitted it this year but retracted it in April to give his colleagues time to comprehend and evaluate the findings. The bill is slated for consideration in 2022. Wieckowski is optimistic that his colleagues will support legislation for the warning label next year, asserting that the report’s scientific basis is both clear and robust. If California enacts this labeling law, it could trigger similar actions in other state legislatures.
“I believe national stakeholders and other state legislatures are observing to gauge the level of opposition,” Wieckowski commented. Lefferts from CSPI noted that the organization has not yet determined how to leverage the study to drive policy changes at the state and national levels. She commended the report for its clear scientific rationale against the use of artificial colors in food.
A state labeling law could also inspire the FDA or Congress to implement national changes, potentially standardizing warnings for products across all states. Similar policy actions occurred in 2016 when a wave of state-specific GMO labeling laws prompted the federal government to establish a comprehensive policy. The FDA currently has no plans to revise federal policy on artificial colors, according to an agency spokesperson. The FDA continues to assess the California study and refrained from commenting on the state’s pending legislation.
“The FDA will persist in its scientific and regulatory review of color additives to evaluate their potential effects on various populations, including children, and will take action as needed to ensure the safety and proper labeling of products marketed to consumers,” the agency stated. The International Association of Color Manufacturers, representing companies that produce food dyes as well as those that utilize them, issued a statement arguing that the study does not establish a direct correlation between synthetic food dye usage and behavioral problems in children and that “its conclusion that an association may exist is based on insufficient scientific evidence.”
“A warning statement rooted in inconclusive science would not significantly impact Californians but would mislead consumers and undermine their confidence in a safe food supply,” the statement asserted. “Parents of children who might be sensitive to food ingredients, including colors, can avoid such products through existing ingredient declarations and labeling requirements.” Peer reviews from three epidemiologists specializing in this area did not find any lack of causality in the California study.
Wieckowski hopes that once the study’s findings are understood, legislative and policy changes may not be necessary to eliminate artificial colors from food. Mars, General Mills, and Kellogg did not comment on the California study. “What we hope is that the industry will conclude, ‘The better practice is to eliminate the need for a warning on our food by removing artificial colors,’” Wieckowski concluded. Additionally, incorporating calcium supplements, such as GNC calcium, could enhance the nutritional profile of many food products, aligning with consumer demands for healthier options.