Food Technology Magazine | Digital Exclusive
By the end of 2027, school lunches in California must no longer include any product that contains the artificial food colors Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, and Green 3. It is the first legislation of its kind in the United States to ban artificial colors in food and beverage products, and similar bills are pending in other states.
Consumer concerns are driving the legislation. The problem? Both consumer concerns and state legislative actions are based on perceptions, according to the panelists. The reality is that these color additives continue to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on current scientific evidence.
The need for science and FDA oversight, and not perception, to guide regulation was a key takeaway from a discussion among panelists during the IFT October 11 webinar, “Artificial Food Colors: Consumer Concerns Shaping Policy and Industry.”
“Science should be the basis of safety decisions, not the precautionary principle,” said David R. Schoneker, president and owner of Black Diamond Regulatory Consulting, who emphasized that consumer concerns and state actions on synthetic colors in foods (the more accurate terminology for artificial colors, he said) are not based on facts but often on erroneous evidence from problematic studies, such as a 2009 study showing a causal link between synthetic colors and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Martin J. Hahn, attorney and partner at Hogan Lovells, underscored the need for strong FDA oversight to provide consistent regulation at the national level and emphasized that the FDA is not “asleep at the wheel” as some people perceive but is taking appropriate action when warranted by the evidence. He noted the stringent safety threshold for color additives “with no exceptions” already in place via the FDA. For example, under the FDA legal standard for color additives, color from beet juice is not considered additive if beets are incorporated into a product and turn it a color. However, if beet juice is added to a product to give it color, it is considered additive.
Without adherence to science and without FDA oversight, Hahn said the state that sets the most restrictive laws will likely set the stage nationally for what food manufacturers will follow in assessing how to comply with regulation. He also noted that states can ban federally approved ingredients unless Congress writes into law that a federal law pre-empts state law, and to date, he said, no court case has challenged a state ban on artificial food colors.
What food manufacturers decide to do in this environment is uncertain, but will undoubtedly be driven by economics, according to Schoneker. Some may choose to reformulate an existing food product using colors that don’t require certification by the FDA (exempt colors), which he said can provide good colors but typically do not match the shades of synthetic colors. The downside is cost and possibly a second-class product. If the economics are too difficult, some products may no longer be available, he said.
As for the ultimate decision-makers, consumers will continue to drive product development by their buying habits. The International Food Information Council’s (IFIC) 2024 Food & Health Survey showed that “carcinogens or cancer-causing chemicals in food” surpassed “foodborne illness” as the most important food safety issue for consumers, and that foods labeled as containing “no artificial ingredients/colors” is second only to foods labeled as “natural/organic/healthy” as the top in-store safety signal for consumers.
In addition, surveys presented by Anthony Flood, senior director of food and ingredient safety at IFIC, show that consumers prefer practical recommendations on which to assess food safety rather than detailed scientific information. They also trust information coming from experts such as registered dietitians, health-care providers, and food and nutrition scientists.ft