'No Artificial Colors' Has a New Meaning on US Labels

On February 5, 2026, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an official Letter to the Food Industry that fundamentally shifts how front-of-package color claims are evaluated under federal law. The agency announced it will exercise enforcement discretion under section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to permit marketing claims like "no artificial colors" on foods containing colors exempt from certification, provided they contain no synthetic, batch-certified petroleum dyes. This update departs from decades of historical interpretation where any added colorant was technically considered artificial. For related formulation reviews, examine Skittles and M&M's Without FD&C Colors: What Changed on the Label, our report on 5 Snacks and Sodas Scanned for Artificial Dyes, and individual ingredient deep dives including Red 40, Yellow 6, and Tartrazine.

Key takeaways:

• The FDA announced enforcement discretion allowing foods containing exempt natural colors to display front-of-pack 'no artificial colors' claims.
• Certified synthetic dyes listed under 21 CFR part 74 (such as Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) remain strictly excluded from 'no artificial colors' claims.
• Front-of-pack claims now signal the absence of petroleum-derived certified dyes rather than the total absence of added colorants.
• Non-certified mineral colorants like titanium dioxide qualify as exempt colors under federal regulations, meaning their presence does not disqualify a product from making these front-of-pack claims.
• The enforcement discretion letter aligns federal policy more closely with recent state statutes, but does not prevent private civil litigation or state-level legal challenges.

What happened

On February 5, 2026, the FDA published a Letter to the Food Industry addressing marketing claims such as "no artificial color(s)/coloring," "made without artificial food colors," and "no added artificial color." The agency stated that it does not intend to initiate enforcement action against products displaying these front-of-pack statements, as long as the food contains no FD&C certified color additives listed in 21 CFR part 74.

Prior to this guidance, federal regulators historically treated any added substance used to impart color as "artificial" within the technical statutory meaning of the FD&C Act. Under that older interpretation, adding beet juice concentrate or turmeric extract to color a food meant the food technically contained an artificial colorant, making "no artificial colors" legally vulnerable.

The policy shift followed broader federal initiatives, including Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) efforts announced in April 2025 to encourage food reformulations away from petroleum-based dyes. Alongside this policy, the FDA maintains a public tracker monitoring voluntary industry phase-out commitments across major food categories.

What changed

The precise regulatory mechanism introduced by regulators is an exercise of enforcement discretion under section 403(a)(1) of the FD&C Act, which governs false or misleading labeling. It is important to emphasize that the FDA has not amended its underlying formal regulations via notice-and-comment rulemaking. Instead, the agency issued an administrative policy stating it will not penalize manufacturers who use these claims under defined parameters.

Under 21 CFR part 74, color additives derived primarily from petroleum feedstocks require mandatory batch certification before commercial distribution. These include commonly recognized dyes such as FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine), FD&C Yellow No. 6, and FD&C Blue No. 1. If a food item contains even trace amounts of any batch-certified color additive, the manufacturer cannot make a "no artificial colors" claim under the new policy.

In contrast, substances listed under 21 CFR part 73 are classified as colors exempt from certification. These additives are sourced from plant, algae, microbial, or mineral materials, including beet juice, turmeric, annatto, fruit and vegetable concentrates, and spirulina extract. Under the February 5, 2026 letter, products formulated solely with these exempt color additives can now feature front-of-pack "no artificial colors" wording without the threat of federal regulatory action.

Who is affected

This policy shift directly affects packaged food manufacturers, consumer brands, and shoppers across every grocery aisle in the United States. Snack foods, breakfast cereals, confectionery, baked goods and soft drinks are the categories where colour claims are most common. Shoppers can already observe changes across major confectionery lines, as analyzed in our review of Skittles and M&M's Without FD&C Colors: What Changed on the Label.

The letter covers foods intended for human consumption; it says nothing about cosmetics, drugs or animal feed. Furthermore, the letter does not alter state-level consumer protection frameworks. While state statutes like Texas School Lunches Now Ban 17 Additives. Here Is the List and California's Assembly Bill 2316 target certified synthetic dyes, an FDA enforcement-discretion letter does not carry preemptive power over private civil litigation under state false advertising laws.

Consequently, consumer protection attorneys and state enforcement officials are not bound by the FDA's enforcement-discretion letter. Brands implementing these claims face potential legal friction if class-action lawsuits argue that consumers continue to equate "no artificial colors" with entirely uncolored formulations.

What it means for shoppers

For everyday consumers, this federal shift establishes a practical reading rule: a front-of-pack claim declaring "no artificial colors" no longer implies that the product is free of added coloring. Instead, it indicates that the product was formulated without petroleum-derived, batch-certified FD&C dyes such as Red 40, Yellow 6, and tartrazine (Yellow 5).

To know what actually provides the visual appearance of your food, you must flip the package over and inspect the ingredient panel. Look for specific exempt colors by their common names, such as annatto extract, turmeric oleoresin, beta-carotene, or fruit juice concentrate. In some instances, older labeling rules under 21 CFR 101.22(k)(2) still permit manufacturers to declare exempt plant colors simply as "color added" or "artificial color," creating occasional discrepancies between the front and back of the box.

Shoppers should also recognize that exempt status does not automatically mean an additive is an unrefined fruit or vegetable. For instance, mineral pigments such as calcium phosphate and titanium dioxide fall under exempt categories under 21 CFR part 73. Because titanium dioxide was banned in food by European authorities, its presence in products claiming no artificial colors has drawn criticism from consumer advocacy organizations. To understand how reformulations play out in real beverages and snacks, compare label approaches in Dole Pineapple Juice vs Fanta Pineapple: 4 Ingredients vs 13, Fresca vs Diet Coke: Two Zero-Sugar Sodas, Two Different Labels, Is SkinnyPop Clean? Three Ingredients, Scanned, Is Häagen-Dazs Chocolate Clean? Five Ingredients, Scanned, Is Fanta Pineapple Clean? Every Ingredient, Scanned, and 5 Chips and Popcorns Scanned for Seed Oils. You can also examine ingredient transparency in our analysis of Food Allergen Labels Explained: 9 Allergens and Their Hidden Names, Court Says Allulose Is a Sugar. 'Zero Sugar' Labels Are in Trouble, and England Bans Energy Drinks for Under-16s. US Labels Hide Caffeine.

Consumers monitoring food dyes across categories can review 5 Snacks and Sodas Scanned for Artificial Dyes to see real-world formulation examples.

The background

Understanding why the FDA issued this letter requires looking back at the FD&C Act of 1938. The Act treats added colour as something that must be declared, and the FDA's long-standing view was that any added colour, whatever its source, is "artificial" in the statutory sense because it is not the food's own colour.

This legal stance created an operational paradox. If a manufacturer replaced synthetic Red No. 40 with concentrated purple carrot extract, advertising the product as "made without artificial colors" risked a warning letter for misbranding under section 403(a)(1). Federal regulators reasoned that carrot extract added to a strawberry candy was serving an unnatural, artificial coloring function.

Consumer preference and state legislation pushed the issue to a tipping point between 2023 and 2025. Following California's landmark additive restrictions and subsequent school meal policies in Texas, national brands accelerated their transition toward plant-derived colors. Without updated federal guidance, brands faced inconsistent marketing standards. The February 5, 2026 letter brought FDA enforcement priorities in line with what shoppers assume the phrase means and with the certified-dye definitions the state laws use.

What to watch next

The FDA letter is an enforcement posture, not a rule. It does not announce a rulemaking, so the policy rests on administrative discretion, which a future administration could modify or withdraw.

Another critical area to monitor is the courtroom. Because enforcement letters do not possess the force of binding federal law, courts presiding over private consumer protection suits must decide whether front-of-pack claims deceive reasonable shoppers who expect zero added colorants. Courts have yet to rule on how much weight the FDA letter carries.

From a scientific standpoint, current research cannot establish uniform biological responses to all exempt color additives across every sensitive demographic. While plant-derived pigments like spirulina or beet juice avoid petroleum processing, individual immunological or digestive tolerances to novel botanical extracts and non-certified mineral additives remain subject to ongoing observation. Consumers must assess their personal sensitivities by checking the specific botanical and mineral sources disclosed on ingredient panels.