Are food dyes getting banned in the US and why? What know to about 8 dyes being phased out

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr announced plans to remove certain artificial dyes from the U.S. food and drug supply on April 22, taking a step toward fulfilling one of his campaign promises.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shared intentions to "phase out" petroleum-based synthetic dyes by the end of next year during a press conference in which Kennedy called the additives "poison," saying, "For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent."
While the FDA has said that "the totality of scientific evidence shows 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," food advocates have commended the move, saying it's a step in the right direction.
Here's what to know about the dyes that the FDA is looking to remove from American food.
The FDA announced on April 22 that they will "phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation's food supply" by the end of 2026.
However, no formal agreement or legislation was passed officially banning the substances. Instead, HHS and the FDA have a "mutual understanding" with the food industry that the dyes will be progressively removed, according to Kennedy.
During an April 22 press conference, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency intends to revoke approvals for certain dyes and work alongside industry leaders to achieve elimination of the additives. A press statement released by the FDA also said it is working to "establish a national standard and timeline for the transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives," but did not further specify formal regulatory or legislative actions.
A statement from the watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), however, called the agreement's voluntary nature "disappointing" for its lack of "rulemaking." "Because using synthetic food dyes has always been voluntary, there is no incentive from today's announcement for manufacturers to switch to natural food colors."
The FDA will authorize four new natural color additives and partner with the National Institutes of Health to conduct research on "how food additives impact children's health and development," according to the HHS.
Studies have been done on the impacts of commonly used synthetic food dyes, some of which have found links to conditions like cancer, ADHD and organ damage. However, a universal scientific consensus on how much dye has to be consumed to prove a definitive cause-and-effect link between it and these health conditions has yet to be reached.
As a result, different countries have implemented different rules over time as the scientific community learns more about the potential correlation between food additives and health.
Red Dye 40 (Allura Red or FD&C Red No. 40): Creates a dark red color and is commonly used in candy, cereals, sports drinks, frosting, condiments, gelatin, jams and more.
Yellow Dye 5 (Tartrazine or FD&C Yellow No. 5): A lemon-yellow color often found in candy, cereal, soft drinks, popcorn, yogurt, juices, spices and more.
Yellow Dye 6 (Sunset Yellow or FD&C Yellow No. 6): An orange-yellow dye used in candy, sauces, baked goods, preserved fruit, cheese, soups, cereals and more.
Blue Dye 1 (Brilliant Blue FCF or FD&C Blue No. 1): Creates a greenish-blue color seen in ice cream, canned peas, soups, popsicles, icing, confections, dairy products and more.
Blue Dye 2 (Indigo Carmine, FD&C Blue No. 2 or Indigotine): A royal blue color commonly found in candy, ice cream, cereal, snacks, sausages, maraschino cherries and more.
Green Dye 3 (Fast Green FCF or FD&C Green No. 3): A forest green dye often found in canned vegetables, cereal, candy, ice cream, salad dressing, soft drinks and more.
Also coming within months is an action to remove the use of:
Citrus Red 2 (C.I. Solvent Red 80): Is used only to color the skin of oranges in the U.S., specifically Florida oranges. It is used to make the skins a more vibrant color but is now allowed to be used on the inner, edible parts of the fruit.
Orange B (C.I. Acid Orange 137): Is again used only for one purpose: hot dog and sausage casings. The dye itself is also no longer made in the U.S., limiting its use even further.
Some dyes that have been banned in the U.S. are still used in other countries like Canada and those in the European Union, while some still used in the U.S. are banned in other such countries.
Some food dyes already banned from the US include:
Red No. 3: was already in the process of being phased out in the U.S. thanks to a Biden-era order mandating it be removed by Jan. 15, 2027. The new administration has since asked that this deadline be moved up.
Reds 1, 2, 4 and 32: Banned in 1961, 1976 and 1956, for potential (but disputed) links to cancer and organ damage.
Yellows 1, 2, 3 and 4: Were all banned in 1959 after they were potentially linked to lesions and heart damage.
Violet 1: Banned in 1973 due to suspected link to cancer.
Orange 1 and 2: Banned in 1956 and 1960 for potential links to organ damage.
Green 1 and 2: Both banned in 1965 due to a potential link to cancer.
Sudan 1 and Butter Yellow: Banned in 1919 after it was found to be toxic and potentially carcinogenic.
Some U.S. states were already moving toward removing some food dyes separate from the federal government. Red 3, for example, was banned in California, along with Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6, via a bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2024.
The most popular food dyes are Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6, according to Healthline. These three make up 90% of all the food dye used in the U.S. According to the FDA, food coloring is used to:
Offset color loss due to exposure to light, air, temperature extremes, moisture and storage conditions.
Correct natural variations in color.
Enhance colors that occur naturally.
Provide color to colorless and "fun" foods.
Because natural dyes are less shelf-stable than artificial ones, some food products may look different after the proposed switch is made. Naturally derived coloring is more susceptible to fading and degradation when exposed to elements like heat, light and air, so while foods may have the same general color profile, you may notice they appear less vibrant.
Natural dyes are also generally more expensive to make and use, so companies changing their formulas to adhere to the FDA's requests may have to make adjustments to preserve their bottom line, though it is unclear if these additional costs could be passed on to the consumer.
Contributing: Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY; Cheryl McCloud, USA TODAY Network
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: See full list of food dyes being phased out in the US, says RFK, Jr.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

7 minutes ago

• USA Today

Why did US bomb Iran? In Trump's vibes war, it's impossible to trust anyone.

At least the last time a Republican president got America involved in a military quagmire in the Middle East he had the decency to cook up a bunch of phony reasons beforehand. The day after President Donald Trump launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and swept an unprepared nation into another Middle-Eastern conflict, Vice President JD Vance said the most ludicrous thing imaginable. Asked if he and Trump trust the U.S. intelligence community and its assessments, which had been that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon, Vance replied: 'Of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.' Your instincts? Trump and Vance just marched America into a potential war because the vibes felt real nuclear-weapon-y? Trump didn't even take time to lie to Americans before bombing Iran At least the last time a Republican president got America involved in a military quagmire in the Middle East he had the decency to cook up a bunch of phony reasons beforehand. These guys just hauled off and dropped bombs and now want us to sit back and trust their hunch that it was the right move. In 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the trouble of holding up a blue-capped vial of fake anthrax before the U.N. Security Council to back up the Bush administration's claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction. (Spoiler alert: Nope!) All we got from the Trump team was a lie that the president was going to ponder the bombing option for a spell, and then a stupid Truth Social post saying the bombing had happened. No congressional approval. No case made to the American people. Just bombs away, then a bunch of people known for their dishonesty trotting out and saying, 'Trust us, this was a good thing.' Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth. | Opinion Marco Rubio, like much of the Trump administration, hates intelligence Pressed on CBS' 'Face the Nation' to explain what intelligence led the administration to think bombs needed to be dropped, a frustrated Secretary of State Marco Rubio uttered three words that perfectly encapsulate President Trump, his cabinet and the entire MAGA movement: 'Forget about intelligence.' They should put that on hats. Vance swears Americas is only a little bit at war with Iran Vance continued to stumble about during his June 22 interviews, telling NBC News: 'We do not want war with Iran. We actually want peace.' Because nothing says 'we want peace' quite like firing a couple dozen tomahawk missiles at a country before walloping it with more than a dozen 30,000-pound bombs known as 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators.' On ABC, the duplicitous Mr. Vance made this whiplash-inducing claim: 'We are not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' So we don't want war, we want peace, but we're at war with Iran's nuclear program, but we're not at war with Iran. That's starting to sound a bit like, 'I want to love you but you keep making me drop bombs on you, so it's all your fault.' Opinion: From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down Of course this Age of Stupidity brought us a war based on vibes And in the same NBC News interview, he barfed out this gem: 'I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents.' Buddy, right now we have a dumb president. We have a president who still hasn't accepted he lost the 2020 presidential election, one who misspelled his own name in a June 22 social-media post that read: 'The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri. Thank you for a job well done!!! DONAKD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!' Thank you, Donakd! We have a president who, just hours after his Defense secretary said the Iran mission 'was not, has not been about regime change,' posted this: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' MIGA? Those are the words of a dumb president. And he's the same president who in his previous term took the word of Russian President Vladimir Putin over information from America's intelligence community. Choosing who to trust here is nearly impossible So what are the Russians who Trump trusts saying about America's bombing of Iran? Russian Security Council deputy chairman Dmitry Medvedev said it didn't accomplish much and the nation's nuclear sites suffered only minor damage. 'The enrichment of nuclear material – and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons – will continue,' Medvedev said on social media. 'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' So who do we trust? The Russians, who Trump apparently trusts? Rubio, the guy telling us to forget intelligence? Vance, the guy who wants us to roll with the vibes? Trump, the guy who seems deathly allergic to honesty? If you elect liars, you're going to get lied to It's simple: We can't trust anyone in this administration. They're liars and sycophants from top to bottom, either too lazy or too full of themselves to even pretend they can present a clear case for this risky military action. If Trump's bombing of Iran proves successful – and I, of course, hope it does – it'll be dumb luck. But if it leads to disaster, it'll be exactly what anyone paying attention to these reckless hucksters predicted. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

Newsweek

12 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Russian Newspaper Gives Donald Trump New Nickname

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A Russian newspaper branded Donald Trump the "President of War" following a U.S. military operation against Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. U.S. bombers deployed 30,000-pound "bunker busters" on Iran's underground nuclear facilities, ending days of speculation over whether Trump would authorize direct military intervention for his objective to put "a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror." The developments were published by several state-owned and independent Russian newspapers, including Rossiskaya Gazeta, Komsomolskaya Gazeta, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moskovsky Komsomolets and Kommersant, according to BBC's Russia editor, Steve Rosenberg. Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) looks at U.S. President Donald Trump during the welcoming ceremony prior to the G20 Summit's Plenary Meeting on November 30, 2018, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) looks at U.S. President Donald Trump during the welcoming ceremony prior to the G20 Summit's Plenary Meeting on November 30, 2018, in Buenos Aires, It Matters The U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure has far-reaching impact for American security interests, global energy markets and the volatile Middle East region. Israel and Iran are waging direct hostilities, with hundreds killed as both sides launch missiles. The intervention by Washington could define regional stability for years, test U.S. alliances in Europe and the Gulf, and set dangerous precedents over nuclear nonproliferation enforcement. Congressional leaders and protesters nationwide have warned of the risk of a third U.S. war in the Middle East this century. Russian President Vladimir Putin described the strikes as "unprovoked aggression," and coverage in major Russian outlets questioned the long-term fallout for global stability and Russia's regional interests. What To Know Over the weekend, the U.S. launched strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—using "bunker-buster" bombs weighing up to 30,000 pounds. The attack, dubbed Iran Operation Midnight Hammer, involved more than 125 U.S. military aircraft. Putin on Monday condemned the U.S. strikes as "an absolutely unprovoked act of aggression against Iran." "It has no basis or justification," Putin said, according to Kremlin newswire Tass. Putin made the comments during a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, adding that Russia was "making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people." Nezavisimaya Gazeta ran a front-page headline that read: "Trump has become the president of war" and said the strikes marked a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. Trump "violated his election promise to be the president of peace, not war," the newspaper said. "For the Russian Federation, such a transformation in the White House policy does not bode well. It may mark the end of Trump's peacekeeping efforts in the Russian-Ukrainian [war]," the newspaper added. Rossiskaya Gazeta, a state-run publication, mocked Trump's campaign slogan with the headline: "Trump Makes America Wage War Again." Komsomolskaya Pravda questioned what the attack meant for Russia, quoting a Middle East expert who said: "If this [Iranian regime change] happens, we [Russia] would lose a partner, the Islamic Republic, and be left with a new center of instability affecting not only the Middle East, but also Central Asia and the South Caucasus, regions which are very sensitive for us." Trump floated the possibility of "regime change" in Iran in a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday night, writing: "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Moskovsky Komsomolets warned of possible economic repercussions, asking: "The Americans committed aggression against Iran after war raise the price of oil to $200 a barrel?" That's possible because Iran has warned that it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints, in retaliation for U.S. involvement in its conflict with Israel. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea which handles around 26 percent of global oil trade, making it one of the most strategically important maritime passages in the world. The International Energy Agency notes that any disruption to flows through the strait would have significant consequences for world oil markets. Meanwhile, Kommersant ran a headline with a hint of skepticism: "The U.S. carried out a strike on Iran in order to 'end this war...'." What People Are Saying Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov, on Monday on the situation in the Middle East possibly interfering with dialogue between Russia and the United States: "These are different areas. We have our partnership relations, a strategic partnership with Iran, but we are also working on restoring our relations with the United States. Both are very important areas. "And our dialogue with the Americans also depends, so to speak, on the possibility of reaching a settlement in many other areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that anything will interfere, one will interfere with the other." What Happens Next Iran has repeatedly threatened retaliation for the U.S. strikes. The full extent of the attacks is not yet clear, but Trump claimed Sunday that "the hits were hard and accurate" and "obliterated" Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

The Hill

13 minutes ago

• The Hill

Pence: Trump, national security team did what ‘needed to be done' on Iran

Former Vice President Mike Pence (R) praised the Trump administration for 'doing what really needed to be done' in carrying out surprise strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend, describing the idea of Iran building a nuclear weapon as 'intolerable.' 'You know, the president and I have had our differences,' Pence told Fox News's Martha MacCallum in an interview on 'The Story' on Sunday. 'But I have to tell you, I couldn't be more proud of President Trump's decisive leadership in this moment or the extraordinary professionalism and courage of our armed forces that brought about this historic mission.' 'It's been the longstanding policy, was during our administration, that Iran would never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon,' he added. The U.S. launched airstrikes targeting Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, including the massive Fordow underground nuclear site, Saturday after Trump bluffed Friday that he would give Tehran 14 days to reach a deal to end its nuclear program and ongoing military conflict with Israel. Pence became a vocal critic of some of Trump's policies after the two parted ways at the end of the first Trump administration. He refused to endorse Trump's reelection bid, but the former vice president praised Trump in a social media post on X shortly after the U.S. military carried out the covert 'Operation Midnight Hammer.' 'President Trump Made the Right Call to deploy American Forces to strike nuclear sites in Iran and he should be commended for his decisive leadership,' Pence wrote Saturday night. 'Thanks to the resolve of our Commander in Chief and the courage and professionalism of our Armed Forces, America, Israel and the Free World are safer as a result.' Pence told MacCallum that he wasn't surprised by the U.S. action against Iran and viewed it as a 'continuation of the policies of our administration, where we isolated Iran as never before.' 'I have been there at his side, and I must tell you, I honestly had no doubt that, if the Iranians did not step up and make a deal to dismantle entirely the Iranian enrichment program, that President Trump would act, our armed forces would deliver,' he said. 'And that's just what happened. 'I really knew in my heart that, if Iran didn't come to the table, that President Trump would make good on the threat, that if they were not willing to dismantle their uranium enrichment deal, it would be destroyed,' he added. The new Trump administration had been trying to reach a new agreement with Iran to prevent the Middle Eastern country from developing a nuclear weapon, but Israel's surprise June 13 attack on Iran's military and nuclear facilities upended those talks. 'As the bomb damage assessments continue to come in, my hope is we have substantially advanced that cause,' Pence said of attempts to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, 'and if we haven't completely eliminated their program, that we have set it back years and really set the conditions to ultimately achieve the goal of a peaceful future in the Middle East without Iran making a threat of using nuclear weapons against Israel, our allies, or the United States.'