FDA Backing Away from Plan to Ban Artificial Food Colors

Good. The less regulation, the better.

Great move by Trump.

Your title is misleading

I saw this earlier and here is a breakdown I read:

quote:

---

They are trying to encourage industry cooperation without a full ban:

A straight ban on dyes would require stronger legal backing and likely a long rule-making process.

Instead, the FDA gave companies more flexibility with labels to incentivize them to switch to natural color sources.

They want to make it easier for companies to reformulate products:

Because the old policy made it hard for companies to say “no artificial colors” even if they already replaced synthetic dyes with natural ones, the label change removes that barrier.

Critics say it’s partly a concession to food industry pressure:

Some food manufacturers resisted strict bans, saying removing these dyes is expensive, technically hard, or not clearly justified by science.

By relaxing label rules rather than banning dyes outright, critics argue the FDA has backed off from its earlier tougher stance.

It avoids a public rule-making process for now:

The FDA made this change through a letter and enforcement discretion, not through a full public regulatory change. That’s faster but less transparent, and many consumer groups think that’s why the policy looks weaker than earlier promises.

Instead of banning artificial colors or requiring full transparency about food dyes, the FDA said: “You can say ‘no artificial colors’ on your package if you avoid old petroleum-based dyes even if you still use other kinds of color additives.”

---

Some of the natural additives are worse than the synthetic ones ,as your article pointed out.


Some of the reasons for backing off is to avoid legal fights and prolonging any changes vs getting companies to cooperate faster, thus avoiding legal challenges. It's an incentive-based agreement.

quote:

---

Some of the natural additives are worse than the synthetic ones ,as your article pointed out.


Some of the reasons for backing off is to avoid legal fights and prolonging any changes vs getting companies to cooperate faster, thus avoiding legal challenges. It's an incentive-based agreement.

---

If it is a temporary plan that works towards bans of all harmful dyes that is fine.

But the companies will do whatever is profitable with zero regard for public health.

It seems like you could accomplish both at the same time.

Only buy euro snack food. Costs more but real ingredients. World market. Enough people do this, the money will be followed, but ultimately, snack food is for the lazy so there is no incentive to change to costlier ingredients.

Food dyes mean nothing to general public health when people are stuffing their faces with 5000 calories a day of shite.

quote:

---

Good. The less regulation, the better.

---

Not in this case

Hey I have an idea! How about we add NO food colors at all regardless of whether they are artificial or not? I don't frickin' need food coloring in any of my food - why was food coloring ever a thing???

Another broken promise. I'm shocked. Oh wait.

This reneged-on ban on food dyes was as good-as-done -- or so we thought, right? This is gonna create a lot more backlash than the Palace Guard think s (not that the Emperor or his minions give one single crap about "reactions" i any case.)

This doozy on the heels of Trump's big dumb Glyphosate decision.

Now how utterly ridiculous was invoking the Defense Production Act, simply to designate toxic glyphosate-based herbicides as "critical to national defense"? WHAT?!?

Are y'all seeing a pattern yet?

( How many broken MAGA promises or 180 degree policy changes is that now? )

quote:

---

people are stuffing their faces with 5000 calories a day of shite.

---

"Bread & Circuses". Trashy food, trashy "entertainment", trashy "body-positive" images (whales, trannies, mutants -- it's all good!")

Uncle Sammy givin' da peepels what they want and need. Like the devil.