Featured Image: yourNEWS Media Illustration
A federal plan to remove six petroleum-based dyes from the food supply by the end of 2026 faces uncertainty as some major food and beverage companies have not publicly committed to full reformulation.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Nearly one in five packaged foods and beverages sold in U.S. grocery stores still contains synthetic dyes, even as federal health officials and several states move to restrict the additives over concerns about children’s behavior and broader health effects.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Food and Drug Administration announced in April 2025 a voluntary plan to phase out six petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply by the end of 2026. The targeted additives include Red No. 40, Yellow Nos. 5 and 6, Blue Nos. 1 and 2, and Green No. 3, all of which remain legally approved by the FDA.
The effort is part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign and has generated public attention, state-level legislation and some industry reformulation pledges. But more than a year after the announcement, results remain uneven.
A study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that 19% of packaged foods and drinks sold in U.S. grocery stores contain synthetic dyes. Among products often marketed to children, including breakfast cereals, confectionery and soft drinks, the share rises to 28%.
Some major manufacturers have pledged changes. General Mills and Kraft Heinz have committed to reformulating products. Other large companies, however, have not publicly announced comprehensive plans to remove synthetic dyes from their U.S. product lines.
An analysis by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found that Ferrero, Coca-Cola Company and Keurig Dr Pepper had not publicly committed to broad dye removal. Ferrero had the highest share among confectionery companies, with synthetic dyes in 60% of its products, followed by Mars at 52%.
The voluntary structure of the federal phase-out has drawn concern from food policy experts, who say industry promises are difficult to enforce without regulation.
“Voluntary phase-outs are only as strong as the companies willing to honor them,” said Darin Detwiler, a food policy expert at Northeastern University. “If major brands opt out, then what we have is not a phase-out. It is a public relations exercise with no enforceable finish line.”
Food policy observers have also pointed to previous reformulation promises that were not fully completed. Mars announced in 2016 that it planned to remove artificial colors from its food portfolio within five years, a goal critics say was not fully achieved in the United States.
The push to remove synthetic dyes is driven by a growing body of research examining possible health and behavioral effects. A 2022 review by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment examined 27 clinical studies and found that 16 of 25 human challenge studies showed evidence of adverse behavioral effects, including hyperactivity, inattentiveness and restlessness.
A 2024 review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health linked artificial food colorings to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and behavioral problems, as well as possible allergic, gastrointestinal and respiratory effects.
Not all researchers agree on how far the evidence goes. Jamie Alan, an associate professor at Michigan State University, questioned whether removing artificial dyes would meaningfully change outcomes involving diabetes, obesity or ADHD. Alan argued that improving access to nutritious food through programs such as WIC and SNAP should remain a priority.
While the federal government relies on voluntary industry cooperation, several states have moved more directly. California enacted limits on several synthetic dyes in foods served in public schools. West Virginia passed a law banning seven widely used food dyes. Texas will require warning labels on products containing synthetic dyes beginning in 2027.
The growing number of state rules could force companies to navigate different requirements across markets. Researchers and food policy experts say those state actions, combined with consumer pressure and public awareness, may push manufacturers toward broader reformulation even without federal mandates.
“The real question is whether companies will wait for 50 different state approaches, lawsuits, investigations and consumer backlash, or whether they will lead,” Detwiler said. “These dyes add color, not nutrition.”
The FDA has also moved to expand alternatives. The agency has authorized four new natural color additives and is accelerating review of additional options, including Galdieria extract blue, butterfly pea flower extract and gardenia blue. Federal officials have said manufacturers are reformulating products and developing timelines to transition to naturally derived colors.
Still, nationwide change may take time. Lorne Hofseth, a professor at the University of South Carolina, said broader federal restrictions could depend on additional scientific evidence meeting the standards of the Delaney Clause, which prohibits approval of food additives shown to cause cancer.
Without formal rulemaking or legislation, federal regulators have limited ability to force companies to comply with the phase-out. Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition at New York University, summarized the current situation this way: “It’s all up to you.”
For parents and consumers trying to avoid synthetic dyes, researchers recommend reading ingredient labels carefully and watching for both artificial colors and high levels of added sugar. Products containing either, they said, are best left on the shelf.
The federal dye phase-out has built momentum, but its success will depend on whether food companies voluntarily change formulas, whether states continue passing restrictions and whether consumers keep pressuring brands to remove additives that provide color but no nutritional value.
Source: Natural News
Original article
Comments