In about eighteen months, the US went from nine FDA-certified synthetic food dyes toward a stated goal of having none. That is not one ban. It is three separate regulatory actions, each with a different legal force, and conflating them is the easiest way to get this story wrong.
The one that's actually a ban: Red No. 3
On January 15, 2025, the FDA issued an order revoking authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 (also called Red Dye 3 or erythrosine) in food and ingested drugs. The action responded to a 2022 color additive petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other groups, and rests on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which bars FDA from authorizing a color additive shown to cause cancer in humans or animals, regardless of dose or mechanism. The petition cited studies showing that high levels of Red No. 3 caused thyroid cancer in male laboratory rats through a hormonal mechanism the FDA states does not occur in humans. FDA's own position is that Red No. 3 meets the ordinary safety standard for a color additive. The revocation happened anyway, because the Delaney Clause does not leave room for that distinction once animal carcinogenicity has been shown.
This is a real ban, not a request, but the compliance clock is long. Food manufacturers have until January 15, 2027 to reformulate; ingested drug manufacturers have until January 18, 2028. Products manufactured before those dates can legally remain on shelves after them. A candy or frosting in your cart today may still legally contain Red No. 3.
Where the hyperactivity research comes from
The research thread behind all three actions goes back further than 2025. A UK-government-funded study led by University of Southampton researchers, published in The Lancet in 2007, reported an association between certain synthetic dye mixtures, paired with the preservative sodium benzoate, and increased hyperactivity in children in the general population, not only children with an existing attention diagnosis. The UK and EU responded by requiring a warning label on foods containing the dyes studied. FDA reviewed the same research at the time and did not require a label, citing limitations in the study design and inconsistent replication. That 2007 finding is the thread both the 2025 phase-out announcement and the wave of state-level dye bills since have pulled on.
The one that isn't a ban yet: six more dyes
On April 22, 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary announced a plan to eliminate the remaining petroleum-based synthetic dyes, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, from the food supply by the end of 2026. At the same press conference, Makary cited a Lancet-published study reporting an association between synthetic dyes and hyperactivity, continuing the same research thread.
The word that matters here is voluntary. FDA did not revoke authorization for any of the six; it asked industry to stop using them, and paired the request with fast-tracked approvals for natural alternatives, including a new beetroot red color additive and expanded uses of spirulina extract. Two smaller-volume dyes, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, were separately named for actual revocation in the coming months, putting those two on the same formal track as Red No. 3. The other six are not on that track unless FDA opens a separate revocation process.
The one that's just a labeling clarification
On February 5, 2026, FDA sent a letter to the food industry addressing something the phase-out push had made messy: US labeling rules never actually distinguished between synthetic and natural-source added colors for the purpose of a "no artificial colors" claim. FDA's letter states the agency will exercise enforcement discretion and not pursue claims like "made without artificial food colors" on products that contain no FD&C-certified color, even if the product still contains an added natural color. The underlying regulation defining "artificial color" under 21 CFR 101.22 did not change; FDA is only stating how it intends to enforce it.
The divergence that cuts the other way
FDA's own January 2025 notice states plainly that other countries still currently permit certain uses of erythrosine. On this one additive, the US moved first and further than the EU has. Divergence runs in both directions, and which regulator is stricter changes by chemical, not by continent.
PurityIQ shows you which certified colors are actually in a scanned product, and which of these actions, if any, applies to it, cited to the FDA notice or Federal Register entry behind it. No score, no "clean" badge. Just the record.
Sources:
-
FDA: FD&C Red No. 3 — https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/fdc-red-no-3
-
Federal Register: 90 Fed. Reg. 4628 (Jan. 16, 2025) — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2025-00830/color-additive-petition-from-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest-et-al-request-to-revoke-color
-
FDA/HHS: Phase Out Petroleum-Based Synthetic Dyes (Apr. 22, 2025) — https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply
-
FDA: Letter to Food Industry on "No Artificial Colors" Labeling (Feb. 5, 2026) — https://www.fda.gov/food/food-chemical-safety/letter-food-industry-no-artificial-colors-labeling-claims
-
21 CFR 101.22(a)(4) — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.22