— OPINION —
By Renee Leber, Technical Services Manager, Institute of Food Technologists (IFT)
As more states seek to ban foods with certain dyes or additives in the name of food safety, consumers and the food industry alike are left wondering what comes next.
California has a history of progressive food legislation. In 2008, it passed the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (Proposition 2) that set rules around the confinement of certain animals on California farms. Two years later it passed a bill banning the sale of in- and out-of-state eggs that didn’t meet the requirements set forth in Prop 2. The state ultimately extended the ban to pork in 2018. Some states followed California’s footsteps and enacted similar laws.
History is repeating itself as California is now leading the way with a series of food bans that have made waves across the nation: 2023’s California Food Safety Act banned products containing four food additives — brominated vegetable oil (BVO), potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red #3 — which prompted 10 other states to propose similar legislation. The Act impacted several popular product categories, including confections, soft drinks, and meat substitutes. Manufacturers using the banned ingredients will have to change their formulation by Jan. 1, 2027, if they want to keep selling in California. Violators can be fined up to $10,000 for each infraction.
California expanded its focus to schools this year when it passed the California School Food Safety Act, which prohibits schools from serving foods containing six artificial dyes: Blue #1, Blue #2, Green #3, Red #40, Yellow #5, and Yellow #6. The bill impacts popular products like chips and other crunchy snacks, baked goods, and breakfast cereals, presenting yet another reformulation hurdle for manufacturers.
The Acts have been met with confusion from food and beverage manufacturers who had previously been working within the confines of federal and international law that sets safe limits for the impacted synthetic color and other additives. While restrictions may vary by location, the newly banned additives have already been evaluated for safety by several federal and international bodies including the Food and Drug Administration, Codex Alimentarius, the European Food Safety Authority, and Health Canada. For example, Blue #1 is an approved dye in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Despite being approved by various federal authorities around the world, manufacturers had started transitioning away from certain ingredients addressed in the California food safety legislation. BVO, for example, had been phased out by most manufacturers even before the FDA’s 2024 ban on the ingredient, with sucrose acetate isobutyrate being used as a substitute emulsifier in products like soda and other beverages.
Adapting to the BVO ban may be a moot point for most manufacturers, but more widely used additives — especially food dyes — will be a bigger issue to overcome. Consumers may not initially recognize changes resulting from substitutes of banned additives used for preservation or texture purposes but are likely to notice changes in color when some artificial dyes are phased out. Natural substitutes like chlorophyll for Green #3 and spirulina for Blue #1 and #2 cannot match the vibrancy of artificial dyes and may even impact the taste of products. Color alterations may also lead consumers to perceive product tastes differently.
Reformulating products that satisfy consumers offers its own challenges, but there are numerous other challenges for manufacturers, including creating new formulations, updating supply chains, and communicating changes to consumers. Manufacturers will have to decide whether to create a separate version of their product for California, make changes to their entire product line, or cease selling in California, all of which come with their own sets of implications. Testing new formulas through shelf life for safety factors like microbials and sensory factors like color and taste requires significant time and labor, as does training employees to execute new formulas. Assessing and choosing new supply chains and altering existing ones may also come with considerable costs.
There’s also a chance that California – or other states – could pass a more expansive ban on artificial food dyes outside of school settings or target other common additives and preservatives, adding to the already large challenge of adapting to legislative changes and ultimately racking up even more costs.
Manufacturers may dread having to adapt to new requirements, but when it comes to preparing to change formulations, there’s no time like the present. Resisting change is tempting, but tracking current and proposed legislation can help manufacturers prepare for change now – before it’s too late.
To learn more, go to www.ift.org.
About the Author: Renee Leber has more than 10 years of product development experience. She has worked with food and beverage companies across a variety of product categories before accepting the role of IFT Manager, Food Science & Technical Services. She leads the IFT Concierge Service, helping teams across the globe find solutions for everyday challenges to long term initiatives by providing ready to access research and resources allowing them to overcome hurdles in topics like shelf life, reformulation, food quality and safety, and regulatory compliance.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)
