FDA's Red No. 3 Ban Takes Effect January 15, 2027, but the Wider Food Dye Phase-Out Is Still Voluntary

On 5 August the FDA rejected the last legal objection to its ban on Red No. 3, a petroleum-based dye used in candy and baked goods. That confirmed the deadline: from 15 January 2027 the dye can’t be used in food sold in the US. Ingested drugs have until January 2028.

The FDA revoked Red No. 3 in January 2025 under the Delaney Clause, which bars additives shown to cause cancer in animals. It’s the only petroleum dye removal so far backed by a binding federal rule.

The voluntary part

In April 2025 the Health and Human Services Department announced a plan to remove six more synthetic dyes from the food supply, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2 and Green 3, by the end of 2026. The plan relies on companies agreeing to do it. The FDA hasn’t proposed a rule to ban any of the six.

Industry response is mixed. The Center for Science in the Public Interest tracks 24 large manufacturers. Twelve have pledged to remove synthetic dyes from all products, including Hershey. Nestlé USA said in June it had finished. General Mills is aiming for 2027. Mars began selling M&M’s coloured with natural dyes in August, without blue and brown for now, while the dyed version stays on sale. The Consumer Brands Association asked its members to stop using certified colours by the end of 2027, a year later than the FDA’s target. CSPI notes that several big companies made and broke similar pledges a decade ago.

The FDA has fast-tracked approval of natural alternatives such as galdieria blue, butterfly pea and gardenia blue. In July it revoked Orange B, which no one uses, and proposed revoking Citrus Red No. 2, used on orange peels since 1959.

GRAS and the other rules

The bigger change may be to GRAS, the “generally recognized as safe” pathway. Today a company can decide on its own that a new ingredient is safe and put it on the market without telling the FDA. A proposed rule published on 11 August would make notification mandatory, with an FDA review of 180 days. It wouldn’t be pre-market approval: products could stay on sale during review. Comments close on 9 December.

Other items are further back:

A federal definition of ultra-processed food, drafted by HHS and the Agriculture Department, went to the White House budget office for review in August. It hasn’t been published.
A front-of-package nutrition label, proposed in January 2025 with ratings for saturated fat, sodium and added sugar, was due to be finalised this spring. It hasn’t been.
A new programme to review chemicals already in food started in May with two preservatives, BHT and azodicarbonamide.

Money and staff

The fiscal 2027 budget request gives the FDA’s Human Foods Program about $1.29 billion, up about $108 million, and 50 more staff, 30 of them for chemical safety. It proposes a new fee on foreign food facilities, raising about $71 million. The House Appropriations Committee approved $7.1 billion for the FDA in April, and the agency, like the rest of the government, now runs on the stopgap to 11 December. The FDA’s own leadership has been in flux, as covered in our FDA post.

States moving faster

States haven’t waited. California’s ban on Red 3 and three other additives starts on 1 January 2027, two weeks before the federal date. West Virginia passed a broader dye ban, but a federal judge blocked most of it in December 2025 as likely too vague. Texas required warning labels on 44 ingredients, and a federal court blocked that for the industry groups that sued. The Environmental Working Group counts more than 150 state food chemical bills in about 28 states.

Industry wants one national rule. Representative Kat Cammack’s FRESH Act would preempt state food chemical laws and grandfather current GRAS substances. Consumer groups oppose it, and it hasn’t had a committee vote. Until Congress or the FDA writes binding rules on the other dyes, the national standard is the one set by pledges and by the states that act first.