Just days after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) formalised plans to phase out synthetic food colourings, the food industry is responding with a mix of support, scepticism and concern.
The announcement – delivered on Earth Day by HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr and FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary – confirmed the revocation of Red No. 3, a dye linked to cancer and banned in cosmetics since 1990. The FDA also announced its intention to revoke authorisation for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B in the “coming months” and to work with industry to phase out six additional synthetic colour additives, including Red 40 and Yellow 5, by the end of 2026.
“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent,” said RFK Jr. “These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We’re restoring gold-standard science, applying commonsense and beginning to earn back the public’s trust.”
FDA Commissioner Dr Marty Makary added, “We have listened to the science and to the public. This is a commonsense measure that puts children’s health first.”
When asked if food industry leaders had formally agreed to the changes, RFK Jr responded, “We don’t have an agreement – we have an understanding.”
Though expected, the formal rollout has sparked strong and varied responses across the supply chain.
Stock prices for food giants like General Mills, Kellogg, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz have so far remained relatively stable, but the regulatory shift is already echoing across R&D labs, production lines and boardrooms. With a compliance deadline of January 2027, the policy kicks off what may become one of the most significant reformulation efforts in recent industry history. Companies that don’t adapt quickly could lose market share, face lawsuits or suffer reputational damage.
The synthetic colour ban is a big deal. It’s not causing panic, but it is shifting the game. This is a moment to watch how companies respond and spot the new winners and losers in the food industry’s next chapter.
Activist applause
Food activist Vani Hari (aka FoodBabe) welcomed the FDA’s decision with jubilation during the HHS press conference.
“For over a decade, I have said the FDA is asleep at the wheel. And today, I get to stop saying that,” said Hari. “We’re entering a new era where Americans no longer need to worry about artificial food dyes on birthday cakes, breakfast cereals, or sports drinks.”
Hari, whose activism has previously led to ingredient overhauls at Kraft, Starbucks and Subway, said this decision validates years of grassroots campaigning. “This is the first step toward reducing the amount of toxic ingredients in our food supply and safeguarding American children.”
She also recalled her 2024 US Senate testimony highlighting how American food giants had long since removed synthetic dyes from products in Europe. “Ordinary people rallied for Tsafer food and forced these companies to act. Now, Washington is catching up.”
Scepticism from advocacy groups
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a vocal critic of artificial dyes for decades, said the FDA’s action didn’t go far enough.
“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,” said president Dr Peter G Lurie.
“They announced no rulemaking of any sort to remove the remaining six numbered dyes. Instead, we are told that the Administration has an unspecified ‘understanding’ with some unspecified fraction of the food industry to eliminate dyes. We wish Kennedy and Makary well getting these unnecessary and harmful dyes out of the food supply and hope they succeed.”
Science perspective
The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) offered a more measured response, citing the lack of global scientific consensus around the health risks of synthetic dyes.
“The move, which follows numerous recent state-level food dye bans, reflects growing consumer and public concern over our food supply despite the ongoing food dye safety evaluations, usage recommendations and approvals by various global regulatory and standards organisations, including the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the European Union,” said Bryan Hitchcock, chief science and technology officer.
“While there is lack of scientific consensus to support such a move – 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 emphasised the importance of a clear regulatory framework at the national level. “It is clear the FDA is elevating their engagement at a fast pace to, in part, satisfy consumer desire for a healthier food system. Leveraging science to understand complex and nuanced issues must play a prominent role in creating that healthier food framework.”
Brand coalition
Melissa Hockstad, president of the Consumer Brands Association (CBA), welcomed the federal standardisation of food dye regulation after years of state-by-state patchwork.
“Consumer Brands has long asked HHS and FDA to reestablish themselves as the country’s leading regulatory authority,” she said. “We appreciate that the Administration has reasserted their leadership in response to the myriad of state activity in the food regulation space.”
CBA represents legacy brands like Coca-Cola and Kellogg, many of which have already reformulated international portfolios to comply with stricter EU rules.
Industry pushback
The strongest resistance has come from ingredient and confectionery trade groups, who argue that artificial dyes are safe and essential to product consistency and consumer trust.
“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,” said Christopher Ginlesberger, SVP of Public Affairs & Communications for the National Confectioners Association (NCA).
“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. We follow and will continue to follow regulatory guidance from the authorities in this space, because consumer safety is our chief responsibility and priority.”
The International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) also defended current food dye use.
“Colour additives have been rigorously reviewed by global health authorities, such as the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, with no safety concerns,” the group said in a statement.
“Requiring reformulation by the end of 2026 ignores scientific evidence and underestimates the complexity of food production. The process is neither simple nor immediate and the resulting supply disruptions will limit access to familiar, affordable grocery items,” it added.
Solution providers
Natural ingredient suppliers are viewing the FDA’s initiative as an opportunity rather than a hurdle.
“Oterra has been built on the premise that nature got it right first time,” said CEO Martin Sonntag. “Our natural food colours answer the demand for food that’s safe to eat with quality ingredients that can be trusted.”
Oterra recently expanded its US operations with new innovation and logistics hubs to meet anticipated demand. “We’re ready to help food and beverage makers through every step of this transition,” Sonntag added.
Lycored, another global leader in naturally derived colorants, echoed the sentiment.
“Consumers are voicing a clear preference for more wholesome, clean label F&B,” said the company on its website. “Even if the colour difference is noticeable, the trust it builds with consumers outweighs the risks.”
Lycored noted that many brands had already begun reformulating ahead of the FDA announcement, driven by consumer demand and state-level regulation. “Replacing controversial dyes is about trust. This move is getting consumers closer to the clear labelling and transparency they demand.”
