Gavin Newsom signs ban on artificial food coloring in school snacks and drinks. What to know

Many brightly colored snacks and drinks for children will disappear from California schools under a new law signed Sunday by Gov. Gavin Newsom that bans certain artificial food dyes from K-12 campuses.

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

Production of artificial food coloring in the U.S. has increased more than sixfold since the Food and Drug Administration first issued safety regulations in the 1930s. Although initial studies indicated that artificial colors are not toxic, recent research has linked the consumption of foods containing synthetic dyes hyperactivity and concentration problems, especially among children.

This legislation builds on the first law in the nation signed by Newsom last year to ban the sale of foods containing four food additives commonly found in candy and baked goods and deemed to be harmful. That law applies to food sold anywhere in California, while this year’s legislation focuses exclusively on school meals.

“The reason it makes sense to focus on schools is because that’s where a lot of those behavior and hyperactivity problems are going to get worse,” Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs with the Environmental Working Group, a national advocacy group that co-sponsored the organization. the legislation. “If you know there are kids in these schools who have a sensitivity to these dyes and have a harder time focusing, then you’re not creating the most conducive learning environment for those kids.”

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 when it comes to protecting our children from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Rep. Jesse Gabriel, D-Encino, who authored the law.

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

“The approach taken by California politicians ignores our science 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 at the Consumer Brands Association, which opposed the measure. The organization represents major food manufacturers such as Coca Cola and JM Smucker.

What does science say about food dyes?

Managing the risk of harmful chemicals can be difficult, and California is no stranger to considering controversial legislation that seeks to reduce exposure.

An early version of the law, signed by Newsom last year to ban certain food additives, was derided by critics as a “Skittles ban” before lawmakers amended it in a way that excluded the dye from the popular candy. Meanwhile, cancer warnings that are required by a 1986 law known as Proposition 65 are often criticized for creating consumer confusion and bogus lawsuits.

But advocates say federal regulations aren’t moving as fast as science, calling on state lawmakers to take the initiative.

California’s Environmental Hazards Research Agency released a 300-page report assessing the risk of synthetic food dyes in 2021. Conclusion: Studies used by the FDA to develop safety standards did not assess the neurological outcomes that have since been associated with food dyes. Those papers, which are between 35 and 70 years old, instead looked for physiological toxic effects such as weight gain or decreased liver function in the animals.

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

“We all agreed that the weight of evidence supported an association and that the current acceptable daily intakes for some of the dyes set by the FDA may not adequately protect against behavioral or neurobehavioral outcomes,” said Asa Bradman, professor of health public at UC Merced. who worked on the state’s risk assessment. “And you know, that’s kind of the bomb.”

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

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

But Bradman said the industry had failed to discredit any of the newer research — it only pointed to the original studies, which are outdated and not adequate for evaluating behavioral change.

Colorants in juice, soda and ice cream

Children are most vulnerable to adverse effects associated with food coloring, in part, because they are more likely to eat foods and beverages that are dyed. Even children’s medicines such as cough syrup and vitamins are made with synthetic dyes. Children are also more sensitive because their brains are still developing and their body weight is lower compared to the amount of dye consumed, research shows.

Juice, soda, frosting, and ice cream cones are major sources of exposure among children.

Poverty and race also increase the risk of exposure, the state report found. Black children and women of childbearing age ingested significantly more food dyes than other ethnic groups.

The foods that contain the most dye are “junk foods of poor quality,” Bradman said. Most schools already have healthy eating programs designed to reduce them on campus. This legislation would help encourage schools to serve even healthier food, he said.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.