The U.S. is experiencing a new food additive reality. More than 25 states have proposed restrictions on over 70 different food ingredients since May 21, 2025. While advocates have raised concerns about additive safety in the past, the current Administration’s focus on chronic disease prevention has elevated this topic in new ways. Global Food IQ is navigating the latest efforts to ban certain ingredients in schools or from public sale, as well as the rhetoric on the E.U. vs. U.S. food standard differences. Read on for insights about the current landscape and our thoughts on what’s next.
- While state bills target a variety of additives, ten ingredients are implicated most often – inspired by California’s pioneering action. In 2025, more than a dozen state bills would ban the following from schools or sale: brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and seven color additives (blue no. 1, blue no. 2, green no. 3, red no. 3, red no. 40, yellow no. 5, yellow no. 6). All ten ingredients were restricted in the recently adopted California Food Safety Act (brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and red 3) or California School Food Safety Act (blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6). Since then, several states have followed California’s lead, and so has the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which announced that nationally, brominated vegetable oil and red 3 would be banned, while the six other colors should be removed from the food supply by the end of 2026.
Why restrict these particular ingredients? A recent evaluation by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment found that the newly restricted color additives are associated with hyperactivity and adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children. Meanwhile, California lawmakers selected the other three additives based on their purported links to cancer and reproductive issues. Other scientific bodies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have published similar findings.
- Headlines about other countries having stricter food additive safety requirements than the U.S. are exaggerated. Of the ten ingredients implicated by most U.S. state laws, only brominated vegetable oil and potassium bromate are universally banned by Canada, Australia/New Zealand, and the 27 nations in the E.U. Restrictions on the other eight ingredients vary. Propylparaben and green no. 3, for example, are not allowed in the E.U., but they are permitted in Canada and Australia/New Zealand. The other six color additives subject to U.S. state bans are allowed in all thirty countries.
While the U.S. is often critiqued for having laxer ingredient standards than other nations, the biggest difference comes down to the approval processes. For example, the E.U. relies on the precautionary principle for managing risk – meaning that restrictions are warranted if risk is high but scientific evidence is uncertain – while the U.S. requires proof of harm to ban or restrict an ingredient. One example highlighting this difference is propylparaben, which was permitted in the U.S. based on no evidence of hazard under intended consumption levels. In the E.U., propylparaben was banned due to limited evidence of negative reproductive effects in rats, even though long-term human health dangers were considered “very unlikely.” Despite these differences, the Global Food Security Index still ranks the U.S. third in terms of food quality and safety, behind only Canada and Denmark.
- Patchwork state actions may reach a breaking point, but current political dynamics are more complicated than in the past. As of this blog’s publication, eight states have passed legislation to restrict additive use (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia), with most bills primarily focusing on the ingredients banned in California. History suggests that an influx of variable state legislation can lead to FDA preemption, or national standards that help avoid consumer confusion and undue burden on industry (think GMO labeling or menu labeling).
However, current U.S. political leadership seems more inclined to increase state regulatory responsibilities and voluntary industry action, as evidenced by FDA’s recent plea for states to pilot their own SNAP restrictions and companies to voluntarily remove several color additives. FDA plans to only revoke authorization for two colors (Citrus Red 2, Orange B). Senator Marshall (R-Kansas) is reportedly working on legislation, known as the Food Ingredient Transparency (FIT) Act, that would tighten federal rules around food additives and preempt state activities (while also requiring mandatory GRAS notification), but broader support for this action is unclear.
- Existing actions may only be scratching the surface of ingredients to come under fire. Based on Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) priorities and global momentum, public health nutrition authorities and legislators may challenge additional ingredients in years to come:
- Titanium dioxide, a color additive that imparts a white color. Titanium dioxide was banned in the E.U. in 2022 after it was deemed no longer safe by EFSA. Arizona recently banned this ingredient, and seven other states are seeking to follow suit.
- Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), an antioxidant that stabilizes fats in cereals and vegetable oils. BHA is considered a possible carcinogen by IARC and West Virginia banned this ingredient in March.
- Azodicarbonamide, a flour whitening agent and dough conditioner that produces a lighter, more voluminous bread. Banned in the E.U., and at least four states are considering similar prohibitions.
- Low- and no-calorie sweeteners. Sweeteners face ongoing scrutiny from organizations like WHO related to potential long-term health impacts (e.g., risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease), despite low or very low certainty of evidence. Two U.S. states have proposed restrictions on aspartame and Ace-K, even though the latter received a safety reaffirmation from EFSA in April.
- Seed oils. The MAHA movement is highly critical of seed oils, and states like Louisiana have jumped to propose restrictions on their use in school foods.
The food additive landscape is complex and constantly changing. For more insights and support navigating this issue, reach out to Global Food IQ to schedule a meeting. We can help you monitor the current landscape, anticipate future actions, and develop strategies and communications to address the situation at hand.
This post was written by Sarah Levy and Laurie Hainley, MS, RD, the founder of Hainley Nutrition Strategies and a frequent collaborator with Global Food IQ.
