‘No Artificial Colors’ May Not Mean What You Think Under New FDA Policy
The change is meant to allow food manufacturers that don’t use potentially harmful “petroleum-based” dyes to promote the fact. But it leaves open the possibility that the claim could be used on products with other concerning colors.
The Food and Drug Administration recently announced that it is redefining the label “No Artificial Colors” on food packaging. The policy change is part of an agency-wide effort to incentivize food companies to move away from using what many refer to as "petroleum-based" dyes or certified color additives—such as FD&C Blue No. 2 and Yellow No. 5—and toward colors from natural sources.
Under the current administration, the FDA has approved six such color options. These additives differ from FD&C (food, drug, and cosmetic) certified dyes used to make thousands of food and drink products more brightly colored and visually appealing. Last year, more than 20 state legislatures introduced bills to ban the use of certified color additives or require products containing them to carry a warning label, following research linking their consumption to adverse neurobehavioral effects in some children.
How Color Additives Are Regulated
The FDA’s announcement follows the administration’s April 2025 pledge to phase out certified color additives from the American food supply by the end of 2026—a commitment that has yet to be backed up by any regulatory directive and relies largely on voluntary industry cooperation.
The timeline already appears to be slipping: On its website tracking industry pledges, the FDA now states that it is working to eliminate six certified color additives from the food supply by the end of 2027, a full year past the administration’s original target.
“People forget that the administration’s initiative on certified food dyes was not mandated and that it relied on voluntary action by the industry,” said Brian Ronholm, CR’s director of food policy.
In the absence of binding federal action, states have moved aggressively to restrict certified food dyes on their own. A California law, which goes into effect at the end of 2027, bans six synthetic dyes from food served in the state’s public schools. Meanwhile, even more ambitious legislation passed by West Virginia targets seven dyes in school meals and aims to prohibit the sale of foods containing those dyes statewide in 2028. Other states, including Arizona, Utah, and Virginia, have enacted similar restrictions, many with enforcement mechanisms and civil penalties that go well beyond anything the federal government has proposed. Consumer Reports’ advocacy arm has supported several of those efforts, including California’s landmark Food Safety Act.
Notably, the FDA’s recent policy change was implemented through an enforcement discretion letter rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking, meaning that stakeholders and members of the public did not have the opportunity to provide input.
“It’s unusual for the FDA to make this kind of policy change through a letter to industry,” said Ronholm. “It almost seems like they were aware that, if they had gone through traditional regulatory channels that included soliciting public comments, they would have been subject to significant criticism for abandoning their commitment to eliminate synthetic dyes.”
Representatives from the FDA and the International Association of Color Manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
