Artificial Food Dyes in West Virginia
Food dyes are used to color foods and drinks and can come from natural or artificial sources. There are increasing efforts at both the state and federal levels to regulate artificial food dyes due to potential health concerns. This Science and Technology Note details studies investigating possible health effects of artificial food dyes and explores current and proposed regulations.
Updated April 10, 2026
Research Highlights
Natural and artificial food dyes are used to add color to foods and drinks. Studies investigating behavioral changes caused by artificial food dyes are inconsistent.
The FDA recently banned one artificial food dye and seeks to remove others for possible health concerns.
Several states, including West Virginia, have passed legislation to ban certain artificial food dyes from school meals. West Virginia was the first state to further ban certain artificial food dyes for the general public.
What Are Food Dyes?
Food dyes are added to food and beverage products to change or enhance their color. Natural dyes originate from a variety of sources including fruits, flowers, vegetables, and insects. Artificial food dyes (AFDs) are generated in a lab from crude oil. There is growing research and concern over AFDs due to possible links to cancer and child hyperactivity, including from US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy.
Food Dyes and Child Behavior
AFDs are reported to increase hyperactivity, inattentiveness, and irritability in some children, though results differ. A 2022 review analyzed 25 AFD studies and found 13 showed an association between AFDs and child behavior. It is unclear why not all children are affected by AFDs. Behaviors shown in children eating AFDs are similar to ADHD behaviors and one thought is that AFDs may exacerbate these behaviors in children with ADHD. Earlier studies may be inconclusive due to researchers including children with undiagnosed ADHD. ADHD diagnoses have increased in the last several decades, possibly indicating that some children in the past were undiagnosed. Incorrect diagnoses in children analyzed in these studies could lead to inaccurate results. Therefore, it may be worth re-testing these theories.
Research on how AFDs affect behavior is unclear and ongoing, and there are several hypotheses. A 2010 study investigated whether AFDs affect some children but not others due to genetic differences. It found that 3 year olds who were more inattentive and hyperactive after eating AFDs had two genetic changes in common. However, the way the studies were done would likely no longer be considered best practice. Additionally, they found that AFDs did not lead to behavioral changes in 8-9 year olds with the same genetic changes.
Other analyses have postulated 3 ways AFDs may lead to behavioral changes. One hypothesis is that AFDs cause allergies, though there does not appear to be much evidence. A second idea is that AFDs may disrupt signals cells use to send messages to each other, which could cause behavioral changes, though there does not appear to be strong support for this. Lastly, some scientists believe AFDs lead to nutritional deficiencies. A 2009 study found that Yellow 5 may be associated with low zinc levels. Low zinc levels can lead to behavioral changes in children, though it is unclear whether AFDs cause behavioral changes this way. Overall, research studying AFDs and child behavior is inconclusive.
Food Dye Regulation
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently prohibited certain AFDs. In 2025, the FDA bannedRed 3, an AFD used in foods such as candy, cakes, and cookies. They cited that high, but not dietary, amounts of Red 3 caused cancer in male rats. One study found an increased risk of thyroid cancer in male rats after consuming Red 3 over a prolonged period of time, however, female rats did not develop cancer. Furthermore, the quantity of Red 3 that caused cancer in the study is not comparable to a human diet. For example, in order for a 100 pound person to eat a similar amount of AFD, they would need to eat 2,601 boxes of Kraft Mac and Cheese or 466 10oz bags of M&Ms every day.
In 2025, the FDA announced that they are working with manufacturers to remove additional AFDs from foods and accelerate approvals for natural dyes. They maintain a list of companies that have pledged to remove AFDs from foods and their current phase-out status.
Several states have started regulating or restricting AFDs beyond what the FDA permits. Similarly to California, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana, West Virginia (HB 2354, 2025) passed legislation with bipartisan support to prohibit schools from serving foods containing certain AFDs. Ohio has introduced similar legislation that is currently awaiting committee action.
HB 2354 (2025) also prohibits the sale of foods that have certain AFDs, making West Virginia the first state to have such a prohibition. The status of this ban is currently unclear, as the State was sued by the International Association of Color Manufacturers, arguing there is no scientific basis for the ban. An injunction found the State does not have enforcement standards and did not give proper notice to companies, though this did not affect the school lunch regulations in the law. HB 4852 (2026) sought to clarify when this ban would go into effect but did not advance to a vote in the Senate.
West Virginia’s AFD bans have been met with mixed reactions. Opponents of the bans argue that they may cause West Virginia residents living near state borders to go to neighboring states for groceries. Others argue the bans overstep the FDA and could hurt West Virginia’s ability to attract businesses. Food and beverage industry lobbyists state that these bans will prohibit about 60% of current grocery products and raise prices. This is likely due to natural dyes used in foods typically being more technically challenging to work with and ~2-5 times more expensive than AFDs. Those in favor of AFD bans, however, argue that they will not increase prices and lobbyists are using scare tactics. Other proponents argue that the ban would be in alignment with European regulations, and that AFDs are harmful to children and lead to behavioral issues.
Policy Options for West Virginia
Due to the injunction blocking the ban on foods with certain AFDs and industry pushback, the legislature could reverse its AFD ban and instead adhere to federal guidance. This would leave decisions to the FDA and address concerns that states are regulating what should be regulated by the FDA. Food manufacturers would likely have an easier time producing and selling food as they would be following federal guidelines rather than navigating various state regulations. Furthermore, it would likely maintain product availability and prices.
Pending legislation in Pennsylvania would require foods with certain AFDs to have a warning label on the packaging due to growing interest in AFD regulation. Though it is not yet law, it is unlikely to face as much opposition as West Virginia’s ban because it still permits the sale of foods containing AFDs. West Virginia could opt for similar regulation. Because this would not prohibit products in stores, it would preserve consumer choice while also increasing consumer awareness about AFDs via the warning label. Though this would not necessarily reduce products with AFDs, it may lead to consumers choosing products with fewer AFDs and companies eventually using more natural dyes due to consumer economics.
West Virginia could choose to maintain the 2025 AFD ban. This would necessitate clarification of the date companies must adhere to the ban to fulfill issues identified by the court. These issues would have been clarified in HB 4852 (2026), though it did not pass. The ban may lead to additional lawsuits. Some are worried that this would lead to a loss of product availability as manufacturers have indicated it would take at least 5 years to change supply chains to natural dyes. The change to natural dyes, however, may reduce health concerns and behavioral changes seen in some children.
This Science and Technology Note was prepared by Nathan G. Burns, PhD, West Virginia Science & Technology Policy Fellow on behalf of the West Virginia Science and Technology Policy (WV STeP) Initiative. The WV STeP Initiative provides nonpartisan research and information to members of the West Virginia Legislature. This Note is intended for informational purposes only and does not indicate support or opposition to a particular bill or policy approach. Please contact info@wvstep.org for more information.