This Is the First State to Pass a Sweeping Ban on Synthetic Dyes and Preservatives in a Landmark Move
Health vs. Economy: Supporters argue that the ban will protect children from potential behavioral and learning issues, while critics warn it may raise grocery prices and limit food options.
Nationwide Impact: With additional states contemplating similar bans, this move could accelerate broader food safety regulations across the nation.West Virginia has become the latest state to ban certain food dyes in the name of protecting its constituents.
On Monday, Governor Patrick Morrisey signed into law House Bill 2354, which bans several major food dyes and two preservatives.
'West Virginia ranks at the bottom of many public health metrics, which is why there's no better place to lead the Make America Healthy Again mission,' Gov. Morrisey shared in a statement. 'By eliminating harmful chemicals from our food, we're taking steps toward improving the health of our residents and protecting our children from significant long-term health and learning challenges. Thank you to the Legislature, HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, and the entire Trump Administration for helping us launch this movement right here in West Virginia.'
The law bans the use of Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 5, Yellow Dye No. 6, Blue Dye No. 1, Blue Dye No. 2, and Green Dye No. 3, along with the preservatives butylated hydroxyanisole and propylparaben, from being used in drugs or food products sold in the state. The dyes will be banned from use in "any meal served in a school nutrition program" starting on August 1, 2025. Then, the dyes and the preservatives will be banned statewide starting January 1, 2028.
Related: Are Natural Food Dyes Better? Experts Weigh In on the Pros and Cons
It should be noted that Red Dye No. 3 was already banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this year. As Food & Wine previously reported, Red Dye No. 3 must be removed from food products by mid-January 2027 and from ingested drugs by 2028.
California also banned Red Dye No. 3, along with brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, and propylparaben, in 2023. Since then, a flurry of other states have either enacted or are in the process of enacting similar legislation, which you can track using the Environmental Working Group's interactive map.
But not everyone is on board with the idea of banning these ingredients, as it could make grocery bills skyrocket or some food items impossible to buy.
'West Virginia families will face higher food prices and a scarcity of available products in stores because this law effectively outlaws 60% of grocery store food items, "American Beverage President and CEO Kevin Keane shared in a press release. "West Virginians will be left with fewer choices because of what politicians in Charleston decided without any sound science behind them. Many good jobs will be lost. Businesses will close."
However, for at least Red Dye No. 3, there is some sound science there, including a 2021 study by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which found that many food dyes and colorants could make children more susceptible to behavioral difficulties.
Related: These Foods Will Likely Get More Expensive After Trump's Tariffs Take Effect
'Many synthetic food dyes are allowed in food but haven't been reviewed for safety by the FDA in decades despite recent studies that have linked the chemicals to serious health problems,' Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, shared in a previous statement provided to Food & Wine. 'It's time for the FDA to catch up with the latest science and get these harmful chemicals out of our food.'
With these new laws, it appears as though states are ready to sidestep the FDA completely to hasten the process. In January, Senator Brian Kavanagh (D-District 27) from New York state, along with Assemblymember Dr. Anna Kelles (D-District 125) introduced the New York Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act, a bill that — if passed — could not only ban certain chemicals, but would also 'amend the agriculture and markets law and the education law, in relation to prohibiting certain food additives and food color additives.'
'When we're at a federal deregulation time like we are now … there's never been a better time for the states and cities to take action,' Jennifer L. Pomeranz, an associate professor of public health policy and management at NYU, shared during a panel discussion about the bill. 'Although it's actually always been a great time for states and cities to take action because they can do things that can protect us."
Read the original article on Food & Wine
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Multiple medical groups say they are barred from CDC's panel of vaccine advisers
Multiple medical groups say they have been barred from working on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's panel of vaccine advisers. It comes weeks after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired the original panel of independent experts and replaced them with his own handpicked members -- many of whom have expressed skeptical views on vaccines. Liaisons representing major medical groups were historically invited to meetings of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) as non-voting members to provide their independent expertise in respective fields. In a joint statement, the groups said they have now been excluded "from the process of reviewing scientific evidence end informing vaccine recommendations." MORE: Members of CDC vaccine panel ousted by RFK Jr. say committee has 'lost credibility' A total of eight groups signed on to the statement, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, teh American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association and the National Medical Association among others. In a statement provided to ABC News, an HHS spokesperson said: "Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence, and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations." The statement went on to say: "Experts will continue to be included based on relevant experience and expertise, not because of what organization they are with." MORE: CDC vaccine advisers who were removed from committee by RFK Jr. speak out In their statement, the medical organizations said they learned the groups will be excluded from the panel's work in an email late Thursday and noted they were "deeply disappointed and alarmed" by the move. "To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines," the statement read. Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
12 hours ago
- CNN
Judge pauses termination of LGBTQ+ health research grants
LGBTQ issuesFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's cancelation of US National Institutes of Health grants that research on LGBTQ+ related health issues. Ruling from the bench, US District Judge Lydia Griggsby, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said she would issue a preliminary injunction against NIH directives to terminate grants for LGBTQ+ health research, describing such directives as designed to 'focus and target LGBTQ+ members.' 'It's clear that why the funding is being terminated and why the grants will not move forward is because they relate to that community,' Griggsby said. The lawsuit, filed in May by the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights, against the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services alleges that in targeting only certain, predominantly LGBTQ+-related research projects for funding cuts, the NIH engaged in unlawful discrimination. In determining what grants to cut, Physicians for Human Rights attorney Omar Gonzalez-Pagan argued on Friday, NIH employees 'literally do a search term of projects, and they literally look for words' associated with LGBTQ+ related issues – including transgender, nonbinary, and sexuality. The reason the government is targeting transgender research projects 'is because they believe transgender people do not exist,' Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said. 'We need to take the government at its word,' he continued. 'That this a president of the United States who has spoken so denigratingly of the people that he governs' Assistant US Attorney Michael Wilson argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and would become 'involved in what should be a political process.' This is not the first time a district court has thwarted the NIH's attempts to cancel grants funding identity-related research. In a separate legal challenge to the case, a district court judge in Massachusetts ruled in June that the gutting of NIH grants in diversity-related fields is illegal, though that ruling addressed only a fraction of the hundreds of grants actually terminated. District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, said it is 'palpably clear' that 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community' was behind the NIH's grant termination plans. Griggsby said she would issue a written ruling on the matter in the coming weeks.
Politico
17 hours ago
- Politico
Trump's top brass turnover hits HHS
With help from Robert King Driving the Day YOU'RE FIRED! Since taking office, President Donald Trump has brusquely removed a number of top officials from their positions across departments who didn't align politically with his administration. That upheaval has included a string of high-profile firings across the nation's health agencies. The pattern of dismissals highlights the growing tension between science and politics as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. implements his Make America Healthy Again agenda and reshapes federal policy on disease prevention, food and vaccines. Most recently, the FDA's top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, was given the boot after just three months on the job. The president ordered his removal this week, overriding Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who opposed the move. Background: Earlier this month, close Trump ally Laura Loomer began attacking Prasad, writing on her website that he was a 'progressive leftist saboteur undermining President Trump's FDA.' Other conservative voices, like former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and The Wall Street Journal editorial board, piled onto the criticism of Prasad and his approach to rare disease therapies under the FDA's purview — a concern that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) raised with the White House on Monday, a day before Prasad was fired. Prasad's predecessor, Dr. Peter Marks, was also unceremoniously pushed out of the position four months ago, after leading the FDA's vaccine division for more than eight years. In March, Marks abruptly resigned from his post as the FDA's top vaccine regulator under pressure from Kennedy after his team concluded they needed a fresh start as part of a broader HHS reorganization. The ouster came as Marks had grown increasingly concerned by Kennedy's attitude toward vaccines and was particularly at odds with the secretary over his tepid response to the Texas measles outbreak. 'If Peter Marks does not want to get behind restoring science to its golden standard and promoting radical transparency, then he has no place at FDA under the strong leadership of Secretary Kennedy,' an HHS spokesperson told POLITICO in a statement at the time. Zooming out: And there's also been upheaval among Trump's nominees for top positions at HHS. The White House abruptly scrapped former Florida Rep. David Weldon's nomination to lead the CDC in March, just hours before his confirmation hearing, after determining he didn't have the support to win confirmation on the Senate floor. Some Senate Republicans had expressed concerns about Weldon's fringe views on vaccines. Trump also withdrew his first nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, in May, a day before her scheduled Senate confirmation hearing. The decision came after reports that Nesheiwat, an urgent care doctor and former Fox News contributor, obfuscated facts about her medical education. At the time, Loomer seized on the controversy and encouraged Trump to pick someone else. Hours after pulling Nesheiwat's nomination, Trump tapped wellness influencer Casey Means to serve as surgeon general. Means, the sister of top Kennedy adviser Calley Means, is still awaiting confirmation. WELCOME TO FRIDAY PULSE. President Donald Trump gave drugmakers an ultimatum yesterday: Lower your prices or face unknown consequences. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. Eye on Insurers STRONG EARNINGS FOR TWO KEY PLAYERS — Major health insurers Aetna and Cigna both reported strong financial results for the second quarter of 2025 on Thursday, despite the rising medical cost trends plaguing other major insurers this year. At CVS Health's Aetna, which shook up its leadership last year after it struggled to control costs with more members seeking medical care, has seen continual improvements in cost savings throughout 2025, executives said during an earnings call Thursday. Making improvements at Aetna 'has been a top priority' the company executed by enhancing its operations through technology and reducing 'friction for our members and health care professionals,' said David Joyner, CEO of CVS Health. He pointed to changes Aetna made to its prior approval requirements — bundling prior authorizations for certain services like maternity care. 'We're starting to see the results of these efforts, delivering better experiences while also allowing us to better navigate this elevated utilization environment,' he said. At Cigna, executives reaffirmed their 2025 guidance on Thursday. Its pharmacy business, Evernorth Health Services, drove a spike in revenue in the second quarter, even as its insurance segment's revenue declined. Cigna's cost trends were elevated in the second quarter but still in line with its expectations, said Cigna President and COO Brian Evanko during an earnings call. Key context: Other key players in the health insurance space, including Centene, Molina Healthcare and UnitedHealth Group, have slashed their yearly guidance over the past few months, citing rising medical costs across Medicaid, Obamacare and Medicare Advantage. At the Agencies CMS FINALIZES HOSPITAL PAY BUMP — The Trump administration finalized on Thursday a $5 billion increase in payments to hospitals for inpatient care, Robert reports. The pay bump from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services takes effect in the next federal fiscal year that begins in October. It also includes a $2 billion bump in payments to hospitals with a high amount of charity care. Vaccines COVID VACCINE CONFUSION — Most Americans don't expect to get a Covid-19 vaccine this fall, according to a KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust published today. Nearly 60 percent of adults said they likely wouldn't get the shot, while 40 percent said they would 'definitely' or 'probably' get it — mostly older adults (55 percent) and Democrats (70 percent). Among Republicans, 59 percent said they would 'definitely not' get the vaccine. Most adults who plan to get the shot said they're concerned about the vaccine's availability and whether their insurance will cover it. Why it matters: The findings come after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, announced in May that the government would no longer recommend Covid vaccines for healthy pregnant people and children. The move has sparked pushback from public health experts and doctors — including some who sued Kennedy — arguing the move violated longstanding norms governing U.S. immunization policy. The agency ultimately didn't pull the recommendation from the CDC vaccine panel's childhood schedule and instead downgraded it to 'shared decisionmaking' — a differentiation that doctor groups say has made it harder for providers to counsel patients and for practices to assess insurance coverage. Kennedy and other top HHS officials have said there isn't sufficient data to show that healthy children and healthy pregnant women benefited from Covid vaccination. In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC's independent vaccine panel and replaced them with several vaccine skeptics. The panel recommends vaccines that insurers are then largely obligated to cover with no cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act. More findings: About half of parents with children under 18 said they don't know whether federal agencies recommend healthy children get the Covid vaccine this fall, according to the KFF poll. About 20 percent of adults said Kennedy's vaccine policy changes are making people safer, while 36 percent said they're making people less safe. The remainder said they don't know enough to say (31 percent) or that Kennedy's changes won't make a difference (13 percent). The national poll was conducted from July 8 to 14 online and by telephone among 1,283 U.S. adults. In the States KRATOM WARS — Federal health officials' push to schedule a controversial herbal supplement as a controlled substance has revived efforts among California lawmakers to regulate the product, called kratom, POLITICO's Rachel Bluth reports. Earlier this week, HHS took initial steps toward classifying a derivative of kratom, 7-hydroxymitragynine, as a controlled substance after seeing a rise in overdoses and emergency-room visits linked to products containing 7-OH. The designation would place restrictions on the substance's production, distribution and possession. Washington's efforts to assert control have spurred California Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains to revisit her earlier attempt to regulate kratom in the state, which stalled partly because of competing messaging lawmakers received from makers of products that use leaves of the kratom plant and those using newer, more potent derivatives. Key context: The faction of the industry making natural leaf-based products, which previously had been the target of suspicion from drug enforcement and public health officials, is seizing on the opportunity to make the case that natural leaf products should be legitimized through regulations and 7-OH cordoned off as a separate, more dangerous product. Proponents of the products say they can be a substitute for opioid pain relievers. The 7-OH manufacturers, meanwhile, dispute claims that their products are opioids or resemble heroin. They see themselves as offering newer, better products that entice customers and leave legacy brands behind. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Carmen Paun reports on the Senate Appropriations Committee's approval of a 2026 funding bill for HHS. The Associated Press' Mike Stobbe reports on the fall in U.S. childhood vaccination rates last year as the share of children with exemptions rose to an all-time high. BioPharma Dive's Delilah Alvarado reports on Moderna laying off 10 percent of its workforce as part of an effort to cut expenses amid slowing vaccine sales.
