24 Apr 2025 FDA says it has agreement with industry to phase out artificial colours
The FDA has announced it has reached an (apparent) agreement with the food industry to phase out petroleum-based artificial colours used in everything from sports drinks and yoghurt to candy and fruit snacks.
The US FDA, in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is pushing food manufacturers to eliminate six artificial colourants from their products by the end of next year.
They include Green No 3, Red No 40, Yellow No 5, Yellow No 6, Blue No 1, and Blue No 2. Additionally, the agency has called for the removal of Red No 3 ahead of its originally scheduled 2027 phase-out.
In an official statement, the FDA also revealed plans to revoke approval for two lesser-used synthetic colours — Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — in the near future.
To facilitate the transition, the agency is promoting natural alternatives and expediting the approval process for at least four new plant-based or mineral-derived colour additives in the coming weeks.
Growing scrutiny over artificial colours
The decision follows mounting pressure from health advocates, including HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr and the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, which links synthetic colours to rising rates of chronic illnesses and childhood obesity.
Critics argue that these additives may trigger behavioural issues in children, increase cancer risks, and encourage overconsumption by enhancing the visual appeal of processed foods. In the EU, products containing such dyes must carry warnings about potential effects on children’s attention and activity levels.
“America’s children are sick and suffering,” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary stated during a press briefing, describing artificial colourants as “a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals”.
However, the FDA’s approach — relying on voluntary industry compliance rather than imposing an outright ban — has drawn criticism from health advocacy groups. Dr Peter G Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, expressed skepticism, noting that the agency is only mandating the removal of “two rarely used dyes” while leaving broader changes to the discretion of food companies.
“While we support efforts to eliminate these harmful additives, history shows that voluntary industry commitments often fall short,” Lurie remarked.
State-level momentum and consumer pressure
The FDA’s announcement aligns with a growing wave of state-led initiatives targeting artificial food additives. Last month, West Virginia enacted legislation banning seven synthetic dyes from foods sold in the state, and similar bills are under consideration elsewhere, according to the Environmental Working Group.
Consumer activism has also played a role. For instance, WK Kellogg Co faced protests at its headquarters last year over the use of artificial colours in cereals like Froot Loops.
Kennedy, who has engaged with major food corporations — including Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, and General Mills — on removing synthetic dyes, suggested that state regulations have forced the industry to act.
“These state bans have given us leverage,” he said. “Food companies are now at the table to avoid a fragmented regulatory landscape.”
Industry response: Compliance and controversy
Trade organisations have signalled willingness to adapt. The International Dairy Foods Association pledged to phase out artificial colours in school-targeted products by the 2026–2027 academic year.
Similarly, the National Confectioners Association affirmed that candy manufacturers would adhere to regulatory guidelines, prioritising consumer safety.
Nevertheless, industry groups maintain that synthetic colourants are scientifically proven safe. The Consumer Brands Association, representing companies like Kellogg and Coca-Cola, emphasised that the policy shift aims to simplify compliance amid varying state laws rather than address safety concerns.
As the debate continues, the FDA’s actions mark a significant — though incremental — step toward reducing synthetic additives in the US food supply.
Source: FoodDive.com, Reuters, FoodProcessing.com