– OPINION –
By Renee Leber, Technical Services Manager, Institute of Food Technologists (IFT)
As more states try to ban foods with certain dyes or additives in the name of food safety, consumers and the food industry alike are wondering what comes next.
California has a history of progressive food laws. In 2008, it passed the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (Proposition 2), which established regulations surrounding the confinement of certain animals on California farms. Two years later, it passed a bill banning the sale of in-state and out-of-state eggs that do not meet Prop 2 requirements. The state eventually expanded the ban to include pork in 2018. Some states followed in the footsteps of California and others like it laws introduced.
History is repeating itself as California is now leading the way with a series of food bans that have caused an uproar across the country: The California Food Safety Act of 2023 banned products containing four food additives: brominated vegetable oil (BVO), potassium bromate, propylparaben and Red No. 3 – which prompted 10 other states to propose similar legislation. The law affected several popular product categories, including confectionery, soft drinks and meat substitutes. Manufacturers using the banned ingredients will have to change their formulation by January 1, 2027 if they want to continue selling in California. Violators can be fined up to $10,000 for each violation.
California expanded its focus to schools this year when it passed the California School Food Safety Act, which bans schools from serving food containing six artificial colors: blue #1, blue #2, green #3, red #40, yellow #5 and Yellow #6. The bill affects popular products such as chips and other crunchy snacks, baked goods and breakfast cereals, creating yet another hurdle for manufacturers to reformulate.
The laws were met with confusion among food and beverage manufacturers who previously worked within the confines of federal and international law that sets safe limits for affected synthetic dyes and other additives. While restrictions may vary by location, the recently banned additives have already been assessed for safety by several federal and international agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Codex Alimentarius, the European Food Safety Authority and Health Canada. For example, Blue #1 is an approved dye in the US, Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Despite approval from several federal authorities around the world, manufacturers had begun switching away from certain ingredients covered in California food safety law. For example, BVO had already been phased out by most manufacturers before the FDA’s 2024 ban on the ingredient, with sucrose acetate isobutyrate being used as a replacement emulsifier in products such as soda and other beverages.
Adapting to the BVO ban may be a moot point for most manufacturers, but more widely used additives – especially food coloring – will be a bigger problem to solve. Consumers may not initially recognize the changes resulting from substitutions of banned additives used for preservation or texturing purposes, but are likely to notice changes in color as certain artificial colorants are phased out. Natural substitutes such as chlorophyll for Green #3 and spirulina for Blue #1 and #2 cannot match the vibrancy of artificial colorings and can even affect the taste of products. Color changes can also cause consumers to perceive the taste of products differently.
Reformulating products that satisfy consumers comes with its own challenges, but there are countless other challenges for manufacturers, including creating new formulations, updating supply chains and communicating changes to consumers. Manufacturers will have to decide whether to create a separate version of their product for California, make changes to their entire product line, or discontinue sales in California, all of which will have their own consequences. Testing new formulas throughout their shelf life for safety factors such as microbials and sensory factors such as color and taste requires significant time and labor, as does training employees to run new formulas. Assessing and choosing new supply chains and changing existing supply chains can also incur significant costs.
There’s also a chance that California – or other states – could implement a broader ban on artificial food colorings outside the school setting, or target other common additives and preservatives, adding to the already significant challenge of adapting to changes in the law. increases and ultimately yields even more profit. costs.
Manufacturers may fear having to adapt to new demands, but when it comes to preparing for formulation changes, there’s no better time than now. It’s tempting to resist change, but following current and proposed legislation can help manufacturers prepare for change now – before it’s too late.
For more information, visit www.ift.org.
About the author: Renee Leber has more than 10 years of experience in product development. She has worked with food and beverage companies across various product categories before taking on the role of IFT Manager, Food Science & Technical Services. She leads the IFT Concierge Service, helping teams around the world find solutions to everyday challenges for long-term initiatives by providing turnkey access to research and tools, helping them overcome hurdles in shelf life, reformulation, food quality and -safety, and regulatory compliance. .
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)