Red Alert On Food Safety: How California's Bold Ban On Red Dye Could Impact Major Food Companies

California recently heralded a pioneering stance on food safety and chemical usage by prohibiting Red Dye No. 3 in food items, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing discussions regarding federal food policies and public health. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom sanctioned a law that effectively outlaws the red dye and three other chemicals, reflecting an approach focused on alleviating health concerns, according to a news report by The New York Times. 

A Glimpse into the Upcoming Legislation

The new legislation, set to take effect in 2027, draws attention to the longstanding policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which still allows the use of Red Dye No. 3 in food despite the agency's 1990 ban on the dye's use in cosmetics (such as lipstick) due to potential carcinogenic properties. California's ban comes three decades following the FDA's ban and challenges the federal government's stance on permissible food additives.

Because 2027 is still several years away, brands will have time to update their ingredient lists to be in compliance with California's law, added a note by The Business Insider.

Debunking Misinformation: The "Skittles Ban"

The legislation has occasionally been inaccurately labeled as a "Skittles ban" due to a prior iteration of the bill that would have prohibited titanium dioxide, a chemical present in Skittles candy, according to Forbes.

Bridging The Regulatory Gap

In the European Union and some other nations, the prohibitions of chemicals like Red Dye No. 3 have been long instituted. 

Advocates of the California law expressed optimism that the move could lead to a reconsideration of FDA policies, particularly considering the dye's pervasive presence in numerous food items across national retail chains like Walmart Inc. WMT and Target Corporation TGT.

A few companies have initiated steps towards reformulating products to comply with the impending law. Notably, Just Born, a renowned candy manufacturer, communicated its commitment toward eliminating Red Dye No. 3 from its products by 2024, The New York Times noted.

Federal-state Dissonance

The California law illustrates the difference between state and federal regulations, prompting discussions on whether states should assume a more authoritative role in food oversight. 

Frank Yiannas, an ex-FDA food official, articulated apprehensions over the law's "dangerous precedent," emphasizing that it potentially undermines the federal expertise of the FDA in food supervision, as noted by The New York Times.

Industry Outlook & Companies Under Scanner

Amid the unfolding narrative, the industry remains divided. 

While some entities are working toward compliance, others, including the National Confectioners Association, have expressed discontent, urging an adherence to the FDA's scientific assessments for ingredient safety. 

Nearly 10 years ago, Kellanova K (formerly the Kellogg Company) committed to eliminating synthetic hues from numerous children-focused snacks and cereals. To date, K has not shown any signs of reusing artificial colors in its food. Shares of K plunged 26.18% in one year.

However, General Mills, Inc. GIS started using artificial colors after banning them from its products for some time. The company soon reverted to its previous approach, citing a division among dedicated consumers, some of whom favored the vibrantly colored cereal produced with artificial dyes. GIS shares plunged 18.88% in one year.

Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.

Photo: Shutterstock