Are Food Dyes Being Banned in the U.S.? The Facts on the FDA's Plan to “Phase Out” Synthetic Dyes
The safety of synthetic or “certified” dyes in the U.S. food supply has increasingly become a subject of debate, and, more recently, a subject of special interest for the current administration; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) director Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called them “poisonous compounds” that “offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development.”
Accordingly, in April 2025, HHS and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to phase out six petroleum-based synthetic dyes, 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, from the American food supply "by the end of next year." But the FDA's own pledge-tracker page now says the agency is working with the industry to eliminate the six dyes "by the end of 2027." No formal announcement of a change was ever made. The deadline year arrived, and the goalposts quietly moved.
While the FDA may have thought that consumers wouldn’t notice, that uncommunicated change highlights what the “phase-out” actually is: a suggestion, not a rule, raising questions about the true urgency of the issue. The Center for Responsible Food Business monitors corporate and government pledges affecting the food system, on behalf of consumers who deserve the right to make informed decisions about what they feed their families. Here are the facts on the dye phase-out and why consumers are concerned that a voluntary process may not bring about the change that many are hoping for.
Have Synthetic Dyes Been Banned?
While HHS secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.’s rationale for the plan is underscored by alarming claims about the “toxic” nature of these dyes, none of the the six named have been banned in the United States. The operative phrases in the FDA's own announcement are “initiating the process,” "working with industry," and, in Commissioner Marty Makary's words, "asking food companies" to substitute natural ingredients. There have been no bans, no laws passed, and no penalties for companies that decline.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest put it bluntly: the administration allegedly has "an 'understanding' with some unspecified fraction of the food industry," but "history tells us that relying on voluntary food industry compliance has all-too-often proven to be a fool's errand."
A 2025 analysis in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that 19 percent of nearly 40,000 U.S. packaged foods and beverages contained synthetic dyes, indicating a wide prevalence in the American food supply, particularly in products that are marketed to children.
What Does the Science Actually Say?
The most comprehensive U.S. government review, a 2021 assessment by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), concluded that synthetic food dyes "can result in hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral problems in some children, and that children vary in their sensitivity to synthetic food dyes." OEHHA also noted that the FDA's acceptable daily intake levels are based on studies 35 to 70 years old that were never designed to detect these effects.
A frequently referenced study published in The Lancet in 2007 found that mixtures of artificial colors and a preservative increased hyperactivity in children - but because the additives were tested in mixtures, effects cannot be decisively attributed to any single ingredient.
In spite of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s claims, the FDA's official position remains that "most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives, but some evidence suggests that certain children may be sensitive to them." Europe's food-safety authority read the same Lancet trial as "limited evidence" and declined to change intake limits.
A common misconception is that these dyes are banned in Europe. Since 2010, the EU has instead required foods containing certain dyes to carry a warning label, "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children", and much of the European industry reformulated in response.
Scorecard: Who Has Delivered?
Despite the voluntary nature of the phase-out, the FDA's tracker shows that some companies have indeed made progress, with Tyson Foods, Nestlé USA, Sam's Club's Member's Mark line, Target's cereal aisle, and Welch's Fruit Snacks already complete, and General Mills and Kraft Heinz well on their way.
But the tracker also shows that, for many of these companies, the deadline has slipped to the end of 2027. General Mills' full retail portfolio, Kraft Heinz, Conagra, WK Kellogg, Kellanova, Hershey, J.M. Smucker, Little Debbie's maker McKee Foods, and Utz all cluster at end of 2027.
The FDA's own figure, as of July 2025, was that only about 40 percent of the food industry had committed to a voluntary phase-out of dyes at all. Consumer Reports' one-year audit this April found that “some of the nation’s largest manufacturers, including Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Mondelez have made no concrete commitments.” CSPI's corporate commitment tracker finds that, of the 24 top U.S. food and beverage manufacturers, 29 percent, including Ferrero, Post, and Keurig Dr Pepper, have no plan at all.
What’s more, the data reminds us that historical behavior is a strong predictor of corporate compliance, and that data gives consumers clues as to what to expect from several of the country’s largest food companies. As CSPI documents, Campbell's, General Mills, Mars, Mondelez, and Kellogg's all failed to fulfill earlier pledges to remove synthetic colors during the last reformulation wave a decade ago; a reminder that voluntary promises in this space have been broken before.
The Industry's Side: Reformulation Presents Difficulties
Fairness requires acknowledging that the companies asking for time have real arguments. The Consumer Brands Association maintains that these ingredients "have been rigorously studied … and have been demonstrated to be safe." The International Association of Color Manufacturers warned that "requiring reformulation by the end of 2026 ignores scientific evidence and underestimates the complexity of food production."
Trade reporting cites technical hurdles; natural colorants generally cost more, depend on agricultural supply chains that are still in the process of scaling up, and can be vulnerable to fading or shifting with heat, light, and pH, presenting challenges in replicating durable vibrant hues.
In recognition of those challenges, the FDA has moved to approve or expand use of six natural color options since April 2025, (Galdieria extract blue, Gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extract, spirulina, calcium phosphate, and beetroot red) and, controversially, expand permitted use of "no artificial colors" claims for products that do contain added colors, as long as they are not petroleum-derived.
Where Changes are Happening
Meanwhile, states are taking binding actions. West Virginia enacted the first broad state dye ban in March 2025, though a federal judge has blocked its statewide provisions as unconstitutionally vague while the school-food ban stands. California banned Red 3 statewide fifteen months before the FDA acted, and its School Food Safety Act bars the six dyes from public school food by the end of 2027. Texas now requires warning labels on packaged foods containing dozens of listed ingredients, including Red 40 and Yellow 5, mirroring the EU's approach.
How to Spot Synthetic Dyes on a Label Today
Consumers wishing to avoid synthetic food dyes do not have to wait for 2027. Certified colors must be declared by name on U.S. ingredient lists, such as "Red 40," "Yellow 5," "Blue 1." Naturally-sourced colors may appear as “spirulina extract,” “beet juice,” “annatto,” “turmeric,” or “butterfly pea flower extract.” As of February 2026, products colored only with natural sources may claim "no artificial colors."
What CRFB Recommends
Consumers concerned with the issue can reward early adopters of this policy with their business, but a voluntary phase-out is not a system they can rely on. We recommend:
The FDA should publicly explain the 2026-to-2027 deadline revision, and publish a compliance methodology for its tracker, which currently compiles self-reported pledges rather than auditing them.
Begin formal rulemaking on the six dyes, or at minimum set enforceable milestones.
Finish unfinished business: finalize the proposed Orange B revocation and act on Citrus Red No. 2, as promised in April 2025.
Update the decades-old intake benchmarks in light of OEHHA's findings, so safety limits rest on evidence designed to detect neurobehavioral effects, not on studies 35 to 70 years old that never looked for them.
Encourage product transparency in the interim so shoppers can make informed decisions; Texas and the EU are compelling examples that clear labeling works.
While scientific evidence on synthetic dyes is mixed, Consumer Reports' survey found that 66 percent of Americans believe companies should be required to remove synthetic dyes. Companies that finish the job on schedule will earn durable consumer trust. Whether federal agencies let the goalposts drift again remains to be seen in 2027.