The regulatory landscape for consumer-packaged goods (CPG) brands is shifting, with artificial food dyes emerging as a central focus of both state and federal scrutiny. Recent actions by the federal and state governments, most notably in Texas, have placed a spotlight on the marketing and labeling practices of major food manufacturers, particularly those making claims about the absence of artificial dyes or the healthfulness of their products that include artificial dyes. This heightened attention is not limited to a single company or product category, and it signals a broader trend that could reshape compliance expectations and litigation risk across the food and beverage industry.
The significance of this development lies in its potential to trigger a wave of regulatory investigations, consumer class actions and reputational challenges for brands that market products as "healthy," "natural" or "free from artificial additives" while still using synthetic dyes. As public health authorities and consumer advocates intensify their calls for transparency and reformulation, CPG companies should reassess their ingredient disclosures, marketing strategies and risk management protocols to navigate this evolving landscape.
Texas Targets Artificial Dye Use in Food Products
Following the announcements by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Food and Drug Administration of their plans to phase out artificial dyes in U.S. food products, Texas launched investigations into the use of artificial dyes by various large CPG companies based on potential violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, these companies may have misled consumers by marketing products as "healthy" and artificial dye-free while still containing synthetic dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 6. The regulatory focus is not limited to explicit "no artificial dyes" statements. Broad health-related claims such as "'good source of vitamins and minerals," "healthy," "all natural" or other clean label claims will be under scrutiny if those products contain artificial dyes.
The Texas investigations are significant not only for their immediate implications for the targeted companies being investigated, but also for their potential to set a precedent for how similar claims are evaluated and enforced across the food and beverage industry. These actions underscore the importance of rigorous internal controls, transparent ingredient disclosures and substantiated marketing practices for brands operating in an increasingly scrutinized regulatory environment. Any disconnect between marketing claims and actual ingredients can expose brands to both regulatory and civil actions.
Industry Reaction
Following federal and state pressure, major brands have announced plans to remove artificial dyes from their U.S. product lines. On June 18, 2025, Kraft Heinz and General Mills announced that they will be removing artificial dyes from their products sold in the U.S. Both companies have stated that they will phase out FD&C artificial dyes by the end of 2027. General Mills also stated that it will be prioritizing the removal of such dyes in its cereals sold in K-12 schools by summer 2026. And Kraft Heinz will not launch new products in the U.S. that include FD&C colors moving forward. The removal of artificial dyes by industry leaders is rapidly setting new expectations for ingredient transparency and marketing accuracy across the CPG sector.
Takeaways
These federal mandates and state investigations mark a significant escalation in regulatory and legal risk for CPG brands making "good for you," "natural" or other health claims, particularly marketed to children. Companies face increased exposure to class actions and consumer lawsuits alleging false advertising and mislabeling, particularly where independent testing contradicts marketing claims. Companies should review product formulations, marketing statements and compliance protocols to mitigate exposure in this rapidly developing area.
