Pivotal Action on Food Dyes Signals Broader Shift in U.S. Food Policy
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have announced sweeping new measures to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply. This landmark action, part of the Trump Administration’s "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) initiative, represents a pivotal shift in federal food policy as Secretary Kennedy strives “to fix our broken food system that is poisoning us.”
Specific Dyes Targeted
The FDA's plan focuses on eight synthetic dyes commonly used to enhance the visual appeal of processed foods:
1. Citrus Red No. 2
2. Orange B
3. FD&C Red No. 40
4. FD&C Yellow No. 5
5. FD&C Yellow No. 6
6. FD&C Blue No. 1
7. FD&C Blue No. 2
8. FD&C Green No. 3
The agency will begin by revoking authorizations for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, while working with industry to voluntarily eliminate the remaining six by the end of 2026. In addition, the FDA has requested an accelerated timeline for removing FD&C Red No. 3, which had previously been slated for phase-out by 2027-2028.
To facilitate the transition, four new natural color additives will be authorized, with fast-tracked reviews for alternatives like butterfly pea flower extract, gardenia blue, and beet juice.
The Road Ahead: What’s Next Beyond Food Dyes
Secretary Kennedy made it clear that the phase-out of synthetic dyes is just the beginning. At the press conference, he declared:
“We are going to get rid of the dyes and then, one by one, we’re going to get rid of every ingredient and additive in food that we can legally address.”
This statement has raised alarms within sectors tied to ingredients like certain vegetable oils and sugars.
Administration Commentary
Secretary Kennedy framed the synthetic dyes announcement as a moral imperative:
“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent. 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.”
FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the link between synthetic dyes and rising childhood health concerns:
“We have a new epidemic of childhood diabetes, obesity, depression, and ADHD. Given growing concerns, we should not be taking risks and must safeguard the health of our children.”
Both Kennedy and Makary highlighted that American food companies already use natural dyes in Europe and Canada due to stricter regulations abroad, suggesting that the transition is feasible domestically.
Industry Response
Reactions from industry stakeholders have been mixed, balancing cautious cooperation with firm defense of existing practices.
Melissa Hockstad, President and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, stated:
“The ingredients used in America’s food supply have been rigorously studied and demonstrated to be safe. We appreciate that federal health agencies have reasserted their leadership in response to the patchwork of state activity.”
Similarly, Christopher Gindlesperger of the National Confectioners Association emphasized regulatory approval:
“FDA and regulatory bodies around the world have deemed our products and ingredients safe. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Congress on this issue.”
Despite defending synthetic dyes, major companies like WK Kellogg and members of the International Dairy Foods Association have already begun reformulating products, signaling a pragmatic approach considering recent consumer trends and regulatory pressure.
However, watchdog groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) were critical of the voluntary nature of the initiative. Thomas Galligan, principal scientist at CSPI, commented:
“The FDA has the authority to ban them outright if they wanted to. Voluntary agreements have fallen apart before.”
Targeting High Fructose Corn Syrup
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) provides a case study for the disruption Kennedy has planned. He has publicly called HFCS a "poison," blaming it for America's diabetes and obesity epidemics, despite broad agreement among authoritative scientific groups that HFCS is nutritionally equivalent to sugar and now a unique contributor to obesity, diabetes or other chronic diseases.
While banning HFCS would have no significant effect on public health, it could depress prices critical to U.S. corn farmers, export thousands of American jobs, and contribute to the trade deficit.
According to agricultural data, 400 million bushels of U.S. corn are used annually to produce HFCS, eliminating HFCS could reduce corn prices by 8-16%, and the U.S. would need to import 12.8 billion pounds of sugar annually to replace HFCS, costing $3.9 billion. Despite these concerns, Secretary Kennedy appears undeterred. He has hinted at future public statements targeting HFCS and has suggested reforming farm subsidies that, in his view, artificially incentivize corn production.
Additional Next Steps: Labeling, NIH Research, and Ultra-Processed Foods
Kennedy’s ambitions extend beyond dyes and HFCS. He has outlined a broader agenda that includes:
1. Enhanced Food Labeling:
Kennedy is collaborating with Congress to prioritize clearer labeling, potentially indicating the presence of synthetic additives or sugar content more explicitly.
2. NIH-Led Research Initiatives:
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya is spearheading new grant opportunities to fund research on food additives, addressing what Kennedy calls "a historic lack of scientific scrutiny due to industry influence."
3. Consumer Transparency Tools:
HHS is exploring an open-source database to allow consumers to scan grocery products and identify potentially harmful ingredients.
4. Focus on Seed Oils:
Kennedy has also begun targeting so-called "seed oils," referring to them as another example of unhealthy ingredients driven by industrial food production practices.
Many are also questioning whether the Trump Administration will take action to regulate processed and ultra-processed food products. While Congress has an opportunity to address this issue in the upcoming Farm Bill, and HHS/USDA continue efforts to update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), the path forward remains uncertain. Notably, the December 2024 scientific report which informs the latest DGA revisions acknowledged limited evidence linking diets high in ultra-processed foods to increased risks of overweight and obesity in adults. That said, Secretary Kennedy is a leading critic of ultra-processed foods, citing them as a significant driver of America’s growing chronic disease crisis. He has pointed to these products as contributing to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, and has advocated for their elimination from federal nutrition programs, particularly those serving children and low income families.
However, regulators must proceed carefully before pursuing sweeping mandates against ultraprocessed foods, given the absence of a clear, standardized definition within the industry. Food processing spans a broad spectrum of practices, from the addition of sweeteners, oils, colors, and preservatives to fortification with essential nutrients like fiber, calcium, or vitamin D. Routine methods such as washing, chopping, pasteurizing, canning, or vacuum-packing improve convenience, extend shelf life, and enhance food safety. Even products marketed as "natural" or "organic" may undergo forms of processing.
Without a cohesive framework distinguishing harmful ultra-processed products from beneficial or benign processing practices, overly broad regulations risk unintended consequences for consumers, producers, and federal nutrition programs alike.
Action in the States
West Virginia recently became the first U.S. state to enact a comprehensive ban on seven synthetic food dyes and two preservatives (butylated hydroxyanisole and propyl paraben) across all food and beverages sold in the state, marking the nation's strictest food additive law. The law, signed by Governor Patrick Morrisey (R) as part of the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) initiative, takes effect for public school meals on August 1, 2025, and statewide on January 1, 2028. The move reflects a growing wave of state-level action in response to longstanding concerns over chemical additives in food, concerns that stem from perceived gaps in FDA oversight and predate the recent federal announcements.
Over 20 states are advancing legislation targeting synthetic dyes, preservatives, and other harmful additives, particularly in foods served in schools. California pioneered this trend with landmark bans in 2023 and 2024, targeting chemicals like Red Dye No. 3, BVO, potassium bromate, and propyl paraben. In 2024 alone, over 50 bills were introduced across numerous states, seeking to ban or label synthetic dyes, preservatives, heavy metals, PFAS, and other chemicals. States like New York, Texas, Maryland, and Illinois are pursuing broad restrictions, especially in school food programs and packaging materials.
Advocates believe that even without federal intervention, widespread state legislation will force national reformulation of food products. Secretary Kennedy’s recent announcement brings the federal government back to the forefront of these issues.
Federal Intervention – Only Time Will Tell
The Trump Administration’s initiative to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes represents a landmark moment in U.S. food policy, signaling the start of a more aggressive stance on processed food ingredients under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership. While framed as a public health crusade, the initiative has ignited debates over science, economics, and government intervention.
Future actions, such as restrictions on HFCS, reforms to farm subsidies, pesticide use, and regulations on food labeling or ultra-processed foods, will reshape not only how Americans eat, but also how food is produced, prepared, and marketed across the country.
As the MAHA agenda gains momentum, stakeholders across government, industry, and public health will need to navigate a complex intersection of science, policy, consumer demand, and economic realities.
