It’s a week since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stood up in Washington DC and set out the US government’s plans to phase out the use of petroleum-based dyes in food and drinks by the end of next year but it’s not exactly clear what the controversial Health Secretary announced.
At first glance, it appeared Kennedy was delivering what he had long – and loudly – promised: that food and drinks on sale in the US would no longer contain additives he deems to be “poisonous”.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Some of the snap comments across social media, including on LinkedIn, were warm in their praise for RFK Jr but there remains uncertainty about what the FDA has in store.
The FDA said last Tuesday (22 April) it would “establish a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives”.
The agency, meanwhile, will also start the process of removing its authorisation for two synthetic food colourings – Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B – “within the coming months”.
Six other synthetic dyes the agency allows to be used in food – FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1 and FD&C Blue No. 2 – will be removed from the US food supply by the end of next year, it added.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalData“Today, the FDA is asking food companies to substitute petrochemical dyes with natural ingredients for American children as they already do in Europe and Canada,” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said. “We have a new epidemic of childhood diabetes, obesity, depression and ADHD. Given the growing concerns of doctors and parents about the potential role of petroleum-based food dyes, we should not be taking risks and do everything possible to safeguard the health of our children.”
However, the US NGO Center for Science in the Public Interest was among those first to question the statement, arguing “no rulemaking of any sort” was announced on that group of six dyes.
“It’s disappointing that Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary would hold a press conference to announce the elimination of food dyes – only for reporters to learn that the only real regulatory moves here are to move to ban two rarely used dyes, Citrus Red 2 and Orange B, ‘within the coming months’,” CSPI president Dr Peter Lurie said.
“Instead, we are told that the administration has an unspecified understanding with some unspecified fraction of the food industry to eliminate dyes. History tells us that relying on voluntary food industry compliance has all-too-often proven to be a fool’s errand.”
Within 24 hours of the Washington press conference, multiple reports ran in the US in which Makary was quoted as saying: “No one said there was an agreement.” He said there was “an understanding” between government officials and industry.
“Let’s start in a friendly way and see if we can do this without any statutory or regulatory changes. But we are exploring every tool in the toolbox to make sure this gets done very quickly,” Makary was reported to have said.
“We’ve had very positive conversations with industry. They want to do this and they have offered time frames by which they can do it. “They don’t want to deal with a patchwork of 30 different states, all with different rules and laws and bans.”
From the food industry’s perspective, it’s easy to see why it would support changes at a federal level. Last month, the US state of West Virginia banned the use of seven synthetic dyes in school lunches and food items. The move follows similar actions in California in 2023, where the legislation banned four “substances” from food sold, manufactured or distributed in the state.
In a prepared statement, Melissa Hockstad, the president and CEO of industry trade body Consumer Brands Association, reiterated its position that the ingredients set out in the FDA’s announcement were safe but said its members were looking to increase its use of “alternative ingredients”.
She added: “Consumer Brands has long asked HHS and FDA to reestablish themselves as the country’s leading regulatory authority and we appreciate that the administration has reasserted their leadership in response to the myriad of state activity in the food regulation space. A state patchwork of differing laws creates confusion for consumers, limits access to everyday goods, deters innovation, and increases costs at the grocery store.”
An industry source confirmed to Just Food there is no agreement between the FDA and manufacturers on the dyes, a situation that has angered campaign groups.
“FDA Commissioner Makary said some very encouraging things but an ‘understanding’ with an industry that still denies food dyes are a problem is beyond curious – even if, as he says, he is acting out of ‘love’,” Kenneth Cook, the president of US non-profit Environmental Working Group, wrote on LinkedIn yesterday.
“Our contacts in industry say there is no understanding. Makary’s love, bless his heart, seems firmly unrequited. Industry, meanwhile, readies for a fight in Congress – not just to rebuff its HHS/FDA suitors but to pre-empt state laws to ban this shit that are moving forward apace.”
Elsewhere, in the US food industry, reaction was mixed. The International Dairy Foods Association announced its own pledge to eliminate a group of artificial colours in milk, cheese and yogurt products sold to K-12 schools for breakfast and lunch menus by July next year.
Red 3, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 will no longer be used in menus that are part of the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs in schools, the IFDA said. Michael Dykes, the association’s president and CEO, said the move “goes above and beyond state and federal regulations”.
The National Confectioners Association put out a brief statement, while noting consumers “have a unique mindset when they enjoy chocolate and candy that is not present when interacting with other foods and they understand that chocolate and candy are treats – not meal replacements”.
It added: “FDA and regulatory bodies around the world have deemed our products and ingredients safe, and we look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Congress on this issue. We are in firm agreement that science-based evaluation of food additives will help eliminate consumer confusion and rebuild trust in our national food safety system.”
Announcing that all products will phase out FD&C colours by the end of 2026 ignores scientific evidence
The International Association of Color Manufacturers
Further up the supply chain, the International Association of Color Manufacturers underlined the FDA’s announcement “does not equate to a ban” and said colours “are one of the most highly regulated food additives, with a strong safety profile”.
The association took aim at the FDA’s timetable, even if it isn’t mandatory. “Product reformulation is a complex and lengthy process,” the IACM said. “Announcing that all products will phase out FD&C colours by the end of 2026 ignores scientific evidence and underestimates the myriad of factors that companies must consider when determining appropriate colour additive use, including obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals, identifying sufficient supply and ensuring quality control measures.
“Many natural colours require an abundant agricultural reserve – something the current global agricultural system is not equipped to provide at the scale necessary to replace FD&C colours in the food supply by 2026.”
Bryan Hitchcock, chief science and technology officer at US-based food-science nonprofit The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), says there is “growing consumer and public concern” about the food supply even amid tests on dyes and approvals issued around the world.
“While there is lack of scientific consensus to support such a move [by the FDA] – food dyes are generally considered low risk for the broad population, dependent on dietary and consumption patterns – additional research is needed to better understand the impact of artificial food dyes on specific subgroups, including various life stages including pregnancy, birth to 24 months and ageing,” Hitchcock said.
Consumer demand in the US means manufacturers are already changing product recipes.
“Brands like Lay’s will be out of artificial colours by the end of this year. The same with Tostitos. So, some of our big brands. We’re well underway,” PepsiCo chairman and CEO Ramon Laguarta told analysts last week when the US giant announced its first-quarter financial results.
“[The] products are very safe and there’s nothing to worry about but we understand that there’s going to be probably a consumer demand for more natural ingredients and we’re going to be accelerating that transition. Ideally, we can do this in a very pragmatic, orchestrated way as an industry and not create unnecessary panic or chaos. But we’ll lead that transition and, in the next couple of years, we’ll have migrated all the portfolio into natural colours or at least provide the consumer with natural colour options.”
Renee Leber, food science and technical services manager, at the IFT, tells Just Food reformulation “will have its own set of challenges” depending on the product.
“Generally, the brighter and more vibrant the colour, the more difficult it may be to substitute. While there are various naturally derived colour additives to choose from, product variables will influence which colour additives are appropriate and how they react,” Leber explains.
Food manufacturers’ R&D teams will have to consider factors including pH sensitivity (“in a more acidic product a colour additive would be more red, in a more neutral product that colour will become more purple,” Leber says), environmental sensitivity (some natural additives can be sensitive to heat, light, moisture or oxygen, she says), shelf life, vibrancy and cost. “Naturally derived colour additives will be more expensive when substituting for synthetic colours,” Leber adds.
