Gavin Newsom signs ban on artificial food colors in school snacks and drinks. What’s worth knowing

Many colorful children’s snacks and drinks will disappear from California schools under a new law signed Sunday by Gov. Gavin Newsom that bans the use of certain artificial food dyes on K-12 school campuses.

From 2028, six popular food dyes will no longer be allowed in food sold in schools due to concerns they may cause behavior and attention problems in some children. The banned dyes are: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6.

U.S. production of artificial food colors has increased more than sixfold since the Food and Drug Administration first issued safety regulations in the 1930s. Although initial studies have shown that artificial colors are non-toxic, recent studies have linked the consumption of foods containing synthetic colors to hyperactivity and attention problems, especially in children.

The legislation builds on a first-in-the-nation law signed by Newsom last year banning the sale of food containing four food additives commonly found in candy and baked goods that are considered harmful. The law applies to food sold anywhere in California, while this year’s legislation focuses solely on school nutrition.

“The reason to focus on schools is because that’s where a lot of behavioral and hyperactivity problems are rising,” Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, a national advocacy group that is co-sponsoring the legislation. “If you know that there are children in these schools who are sensitive to these dyes and it makes it difficult for them to concentrate, then you are not creating the most conducive learning environment for these children.”

Several state legislatures are considering bills similar to California’s. However, the federal government has not updated its safety standards.

“California is once again leading the nation in protecting our children from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and disrupt their ability to learn,” said Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat who authored the bill.

Packaged food manufacturers have opposed restrictions on food dyes, arguing that the proper food safety regulator is the FDA, not California.

“The approach taken by California policymakers ignores our science-based and risk-based process and is not the precedent we should be setting when it comes to feeding our families,” said John Hewitt, senior vice president of the Consumer Brands Association, which opposed the measure. The organization represents major food producers such as Coca Cola and JM Smucker.

What does science say about food dyes?

Managing the risks of harmful chemicals can be difficult, and California is no stranger to considering controversial regulations aimed at reducing exposure.

An early version of the bill Newsom signed last year banning certain food additives was derided by critics as a “bowling ban” before lawmakers amended it to exclude the coloring agent from the popular candy. Meanwhile, cancer warnings required under a 1986 law known as Proposition 65 are often criticized for creating consumer confusion and spurious lawsuits.

But advocates say federal regulations aren’t changing as quickly as the science, requiring state lawmakers to take the initiative.

The California Environmental Hazards Investigation Agency released a 300-page report assessing the risks of synthetic food dyes in 2021. The conclusion: The studies used by the FDA to develop safety standards did not assess the neurological effects that have since been associated with food dyes. These documents, which are 35 to 70 years old, looked for physiological toxic effects, such as weight gain or deterioration of liver function in animals.

More recent research, including clinical trials, shows a link between dye consumption and behavioral problems in children at doses much lower than the current FDA limit.

“We all agreed that the weight of the evidence supports an association and that the current allowable daily intake of certain FDA-defined dyes may not provide adequate protection against behavioral or neurobehavioral effects,” said Asa Bradman, a professor of public health at the University of California Merced. who worked on the country’s risk assessment. “And you know, it’s kind of a bomb.”

Hewitt, of the Consumer Brands Association, said packaged food manufacturers follow FDA guidelines.

“It is unfortunate that scientifically proven, safe ingredients have been demonized without scientific basis,” Hewitt said.

Bradman, however, said the industry had not been able to discredit any of the newer research – it merely pointed to the original research, which is outdated and inappropriate for assessing behavioral change.

Colors in juices, carbonated drinks and ice cream

Children are most at risk of adverse effects from food dyes, in part because they are more likely to eat colored foods and drinks. Even children’s medicines, such as cough syrup and vitamins, are manufactured with synthetic dyes. Research shows that children are also more susceptible because their brains are still developing and their body weight is smaller compared to the amount of dye ingested.

The main sources of exposure among children are juices, soda, frosting and ice cream cones.

The state report shows poverty and race also increase the risk of exposure. Black children and women of childbearing age consumed significantly more food dyes than other ethnic groups.

Foods with the most dyes are “low-quality junk food,” Bradman said. Most schools already have healthy food programs aimed at reducing their consumption on campus. He added that such regulations would help encourage schools to serve even healthier food.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), dedicated to ensuring people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. To learn more, visit www.chcf.org.