Login
More than a year after federal health officials announced a voluntary effort to eliminate petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the U.S. food supply, several of the nation’s largest food and beverage manufacturers have yet to publicly commit to removing the additives from their products, raising questions about whether the initiative can succeed without regulatory enforcement.
In April 2025, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unveiled a plan to phase out six widely used synthetic dyes from foods sold in the U.S. Federal officials set a goal of removing the dyes by the end of 2026 through voluntary cooperation with manufacturers rather than a formal federal ban.
The dyes targeted by the initiative — Red No. 40, Yellow Nos. 5 and 6, Blue Nos. 1 and 2, and Green No. 3 — remain legal and FDA-approved. Although federal officials have cited potential health effects, including behavioral problems in some children, companies that decline to reformulate products currently face no direct federal penalties.
Critics argue that the absence of mandatory requirements leaves the initiative dependent on corporate goodwill, state-level action and consumer pressure.
‘A public relations exercise with no enforceable finish line’
Synthetic dyes remain common in the American food supply.
A study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that nearly 20% of packaged foods and beverages sold in the U.S. contained synthetic food dyes.
The George Institute for Global Health identified Ferrero and Mars among the companies with the highest proportion of products containing synthetic color additives.
Some manufacturers have announced plans to reformulate products. General Mills and Kraft Heinz publicly pledged to remove synthetic dyes from many or all of their U.S. product portfolios over the next several years.
However, according to analysis by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, several major food and beverage companies have not publicly announced comprehensive commitments to eliminate synthetic dyes from their U.S. product lines. Those companies include Ferrero, Coca-Cola Company and Keurig Dr Pepper.
The uncertainty surrounding the initiative has prompted concerns among food policy experts and consumer advocates who say voluntary industry agreements have historically produced inefficient results.
“Voluntary phase-outs are only as strong as the companies willing to honor them,” said Darin Detwiler, a doctor of law and policy and food policy expert at Northeastern University in Boston. “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.”
Detwiler referenced earlier corporate commitments that were not fully implemented. He noted that Mars announced plans in 2016 to remove artificial colors from its food portfolio within five years, a goal that critics later argued was not fully achieved in the U.S.
“That history matters because it shows why voluntary promises are not enough when children’s exposure is at stake,” Detwiler said.
Lindsey Smith Taillie, Ph.D., a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, pointed to voluntary front-of-package nutrition labeling programs as an example of industry self-regulation producing inconsistent results.
“It’s common for companies to only put them on in cases where it is favorable to the product,” she said. “In this case, we are seeing a lot of companies switching to natural colors, but my sense would be that it is at least as much a response to changing consumer demand as it is the federal voluntary initiative.”
The Center for Science in the Public Interest reached a similar conclusion.
In a recent analysis of corporate commitments, the organization wrote that the FDA’s measures amount to a voluntary “understanding” between food companies and that not all manufacturers appear to be participating.
‘Meaningful change in the U.S. will be slow’
Some researchers believe growing public awareness, market pressure and state-level regulations could drive broader industry reform.
Lorne Hofseth, Ph.D., a professor and associate dean for research in the College of Pharmacy at the University of South Carolina, said manufacturers face increasing pressure from what he describes as the “alignment of three stars” — scientific evidence, awareness and government action.
Hofseth said future nationwide restrictions may depend on additional scientific evidence meeting the standards of the Delaney Clause, a federal provision that prohibits approval of food additives shown to cause cancer.
“To truly move the needle, we must fund the targeted science necessary to trigger the Delaney Clause, which is currently the only viable legal roadmap to enforcing a federal ban,” he said.
Hofseth added that while the FDA is encouraging companies to adopt alternatives such as Galdieria extract blue, butterfly pea flower extract, gardenia blue and calcium phosphate, “meaningful change in the U.S. will be slow.”
Debate continues over health effects
Concerns about synthetic food dyes have intensified in recent years, but researchers continue to debate the extent of the risks they may pose.
A 2022 review published in the journal Environmental Health by researchers with California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment examined 27 clinical studies and numerous animal studies involving synthetic food dyes.
The review reported that 16 of 25 human challenge studies found evidence of adverse behavioral effects, including hyperactivity, inattentiveness and restlessness.
A separate 2024 review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found evidence linking artificial food colorings to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and behavioral problems, as well as possible allergic, gastrointestinal and respiratory effects.
Not all experts agree on the health links.
Jamie Alan, Ph.D., an associate professor in Michigan State University’s Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, questioned whether removing artificial food dyes would drive meaningful change in health outcomes.
“I do not believe that removing artificial food dye will change any trends in diabetes, obesity, depression, and ADHD,” Alan said.
Instead, Alan argued that policymakers seeking to improve children’s health should focus on increasing access to nutritious food.
“The more logical strategy is to ensure access to food for children by increasing WIC and SNAP benefits and providing universal school breakfast and lunch and summer support programs,” she said.
FDA says industry ‘reflects strong progress’
FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has repeatedly raised concerns about potential health risks of petroleum-based dyes and has encouraged manufacturers to adopt naturally derived alternatives used in some products sold in Europe and Canada.
In a statement provided to The Defender, the FDA said it is working with food manufacturers, retailers and trade associations to phase out the six remaining certified color additives commonly used in the U.S. food supply.
“Our inventory of industry pledges reflects strong progress, including some commitments already completed and major commitments to remove these dyes from products sold in schools beginning with the 2026-2027 school year,” the agency said.
The FDA said manufacturers are actively reformulating products and establishing timelines for transitioning to naturally derived alternatives.
The agency also noted that it is pursuing regulatory action to remove Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2 and that it previously revoked authorization for Red No. 3.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
States increasingly move ahead of federal regulators
The debate over synthetic food dyes has also highlighted growing tensions between federal regulators and state governments over food safety policy.
California has enacted limits on several synthetic dyes in foods served in public schools. Other states, including Louisiana and Texas, have adopted or considered measures targeting synthetic dyes through school food restrictions or labeling requirements.
“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.”
Absent formal rulemaking or legislation, federal regulators currently have limited authority to compel compliance with a voluntary agreement.
Marion Nestle, Ph.D., professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said that reality leaves much of the decision-making in the hands of consumers.
“RFK Jr. says we are not a nanny state,” Nestle said. “It’s all up to you.”
Related articles in The Defender
- FDA Approves 3 Natural Food Dyes in Move to Phase Out Toxic Synthetics
- FDA Rewrites Food Labeling Rules for ‘No Artificial Colors’
- Food Dyes Linked to Neurobehavioral Problems May Be Banned From School Lunches in California
- At Least a Dozen States Pushing Laws to Ban Food Dyes
