Coloring Outside the Lines

As we enter the new year, it’s a great time to reflect on whether it will be a year of blue skies and orange sunsets—or if it will be a drearier time. The same uncertainty applies to breakfast cereals, candies, snacks, and many other packaged foods in 2026 as the use of synthetic colors increasingly is viewed as “out of bounds.”

Members of the current administration, along with influential consumer health advocates, continue to apply pressure on the food industry, rallying their constituencies around concerns about synthetic coloring agents and other artificial ingredients. As a result, scrutiny has never been greater.

This year, the color of our food may be as unpredictable and changeable as the weather, and the political climate is amplifying that uncertainty.

The term jawboning has long been shorthand for using public influence rather than legislation to force change. That is precisely what has unfolded over the past year. Jawboning is a tool of persuasion, pressure, and public positioning: Challenge industry behavior loudly and directly, and let public opinion do the rest. It is effective because it bypasses the long arc of formal policymaking and regulatory review.

Given that an outright ban on artificial ingredients didn’t survive the political review and editing process in the Make America Healthy Again Strategy—which mostly calls for review, reconsideration, and assessment—it’s even less likely to make it through legislation and rule-making that would turn the strategy into policy.

Many food companies are reformulating products to remove synthetic colors and other additives, and some are rolling out “free-from” products as parallel line extensions. And, of course, many startups are steering completely clear of artificial ingredients.

Importantly, this work is not new and goes back to when companies like Whole Foods, Panera, and Chick-fil-A rolled out their “never ever” ingredient lists as part of broader efforts to build trust and increase consumer loyalty.

Nevertheless, the external narrative often frames current reformulation efforts as overdue industry concessions rather than ongoing commitments. It overlooks the extensive work that food companies have already undertaken. Work in our industry to remove or avoid artificial ingredients has been underway since President Barack Obama’s second term. Without careful reframing, those earlier efforts now risk being perceived as reluctant concessions rather than proactive commitments.

The new year offers an opportunity to shift the narrative. There is room to acknowledge the industry’s leadership on ingredient transparency and demonstrate continued momentum rather than defaulting to opposition.

Given the uneven public response, shifting priorities within federal agencies, and continued staff turnover across policy offices, the industry still has time to recalibrate public perception.

Here’s what it would take for the food industry to better position itself:

• Highlight that the work to remove artificial ingredients has been ongoing since well before January 2025.
• Regularly confirm that industry and government are working together to improve public health.
• Work to advance science and support research on food, diet, and health via public/private partnerships.
• Avoid debating science in public forums. These conversations rarely translate into trust, and they often create confusion.
• Don’t defend the benefits of artificial ingredients that may be removed; simply build trust by meeting consumer expectations.
• Prioritize solutions through transparent product development rather than relying on behind-the-scenes lobbying, which is increasingly less effective and more likely to be exposed.

If the food industry shifts its stance from a defensive posture to ownership of the progress already made, criticism will lose momentum. Jawboning will become noise, not narrative.ft

The opinions expressed in Dialogue are those of the author.