West Virginia lawmakers have made history by passing a groundbreaking bill that bans a slate of artificial food dyes and preservatives, positioning the state as a trailblazer in the fight for safer food. House Bill 2354, approved by the state Senate on March 5, 2025, with a 31-2 vote, prohibits… Continue Reading state legislation, Blue Dye No. 1, Blue Dye No. 2, Food Dyes, Green Dye No. 3, House Bill 2354, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40, West Virginia, Yellow Dye No. 5, Yellow Dye No. 6 Food Safety News
West Virginia lawmakers have made history by passing a groundbreaking bill that bans a slate of artificial food dyes and preservatives, positioning the state as a trailblazer in the fight for safer food.
House Bill 2354, approved by the state Senate on March 5, 2025, with a 31-2 vote, prohibits the sale of food products containing seven synthetic dyes and two preservatives, citing health concerns for children and families. The measure, which cleared the House of Delegates on Feb. 28 with a 93-5 vote, now awaits reconciliation over its effective date before heading to Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s desk for final approval.
The bill’s passage marks West Virginia as the first state in the U.S. to pass such a comprehensive food dye ban, a move supporters hail as a vital step toward improving public health in a state plagued by poor health outcomes.
“This is probably the most important bill that we will vote on in our entire careers here,” said Sen. Laura Wakim Chapman, R-Ohio, chair of the Senate Health and Human Resources Committee, during the Senate debate. “This will be the start of making our state and our children healthier.”
A health-driven push in a struggling state
West Virginia’s decision comes amid growing national scrutiny of synthetic food additives, particularly their potential links to neurobehavioral issues in children. The dyes targeted by House Bill 2354 (HB 2354) — Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, and Green No. 3 — along with preservatives butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and propylparaben, have been flagged by lawmakers as unnecessary and harmful. Del. Adam Burkhammer, R-Lewis, the bill’s lead sponsor in the House, argued that these additives contribute to hyperactivity and behavioral problems in kids, a concern echoed by Chapman, who pointed to the state’s high obesity rates and limited access to healthy food options.
No. 6 and Red No. 40, are among the popular
snacks facing a ban under West Virginia’s HB 2354.
“No more toxic colors, no more poisoning ourselves or our children. Our health is not for sale,” Chapman said on the Senate floor, emphasizing the need to act where she believes federal regulators have failed.
West Virginia ranks among the nation’s unhealthiest states, with a 41 percent adult obesity rate and the highest diabetes prevalence, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2023 data). For supporters, HB 2354 is a direct response to these challenges, aiming to make the food supply safer for all residents, especially children reliant on school meals.
The bill’s scope is twofold: It bans the listed additives in school nutrition programs effective Aug. 1, 2025, with exemptions for off-site or after-hours fundraisers, and extends the prohibition to all food sold statewide, though the Senate amended the latter to take effect Jan. 1, 2028, rather than the House’s proposed 2027 date. This delay, lawmakers say, gives manufacturers and grocers time to adapt, aligning with a federal ban on Red No. 3 set for 2027 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While a 2021 California study found potential risks from dyes like Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Yellow No. 6, the FDA maintains most are safe at current levels, a divide driving state defiance.
Specific Dyes Banned Under HB 2354
- Red Dye No. 3 (Erythrosine)
Made From: A synthetic dye derived from coal tar or petroleum, containing iodine.
Found In: Maraschino cherries, candy, baked goods, and some fruit-flavored drinks. - Red Dye No. 40 (Allura Red AC)
Made From: A petroleum-based azo dye.
Found In: Cherry-flavored candies, sodas such as fruit punch, gelatin desserts, and cereals like Froot Loops. - Yellow Dye No. 5 (Tartrazine)
Made From: A synthetic azo dye from coal tar or petroleum.
Found In: Lemon-flavored candies, Mountain Dew, macaroni and cheese, and snack foods like Doritos. - Yellow Dye No. 6 (Sunset Yellow FCF)
Made From: Another petroleum-derived azo dye.
Found In: Orange sodas, cheese puffs including Cheetos, breakfast cereals such as Cap’n Crunch, and cake mixes. - Blue Dye No. 1 (Brilliant Blue FCF)
Made From: A synthetic dye from coal tar or petroleum.
Found In: Blue raspberry candies, sports drinks such as Gatorade, ice creams, and frostings. - Blue Dye No. 2 (Indigotine)
Made From: A synthetic indigo dye from coal tar or petroleum.
Found In: Blue candies, pet foods, and some baked goods like blueberry muffins. - Green Dye No. 3 (Fast Green FCF)
Made From: A synthetic dye from coal tar or petroleum.
Found In: Lime-flavored gelatin, green candies, and certain canned vegetables like peas.
Legislative journey and debate
HB 2354’s path through the Legislature was swift but not without contention. Introduced in the House, it gained traction after the Health and Human Resources Committee voted 15-5 in favor, despite concerns from Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, who supported the intent but questioned its feasibility at the state level.
“I still don’t see how we can do this on a state level. I personally think we should wait until it is done on a federal level,” Pushkin told local media, WCHS-TV, on Feb. 20.
Nevertheless, the House passed it overwhelmingly, with only five Republicans dissenting.
In the Senate, the bill faced minimal opposition, with Sens. Jack Woodrum, R-Summers, and Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, casting the lone “no” votes. Tarr argued that the evidence against the dyes was insufficient, citing a lack of recent FDA studies, and warned of economic repercussions.
“The fact that we would come in and tell food manufacturers here that you have to now have a less competitive ability to manufacture foods here as compared to any other state is bad practice,” he said.
Tarr’s concerns reflect a broader critique from industry groups like the National Confectioners Association (NCA), which warned that the ban would drive up food costs and reduce availability in an already strained market.
“While food safety is the number one priority for U.S. confectionery companies, this measure will make food significantly more expensive for and significantly less accessible to people in West Virginia,” the NCA said in a statement after the Senate vote.
The group stressed that the FDA, not state lawmakers, should lead on food safety regulations, a sentiment Tarr echoed in his opposition. Some predict supply chain disruptions, with manufacturers potentially reformulating products solely for West Virginia or pulling items from shelves, a challenge California faced after its 2024 school ban.
Supporters, however, dismissed these arguments as scare tactics. Sen. Jason Barrett, R-Berkeley, who had pushed a related bill targeting school food dyes, countered that alternatives already exist.
“Opponents have said there will be no food on our shelves. This is bullying and scare tactics. This is false,” Barrett said, pointing to retailers like Aldi, which uses natural ingredients in its products.
He added that the FDA’s inaction — failing to reevaluate these chemicals in decades — necessitated state-level intervention.
A national trend gains momentum
West Virginia’s move is part of a broader wave of state-led efforts to regulate food additives. Eleven other states, including California, which banned synthetic dyes in school meals in 2024, are considering similar measures — Texas and Oklahoma among them, with Oklahoma eyeing a ban on 21 additives.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit group advocating for safer food policies, praised HB 2354 as a “crucial step” in protecting consumers.
“Everyone agrees that our food should be safe, especially food offered at school,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs. “This bill builds on the growing nationwide momentum to get dangerous chemicals out of our food.”
Scientific backing for the ban includes studies linking synthetic dyes to behavioral issues. A 2021 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment report found that Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Yellow No. 6 may exacerbate hyperactivity in some children, though the evidence remains debated. BHA, one of the banned preservatives, is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1986), while propylparaben has raised concerns over endocrine disruption.
Critics, including the confectioners group, argue that the FDA’s approval of these additives — except for Red No. 3, revoked in October 2024 after decades of debate — indicates their safety. But Barrett and others see this as a failure of federal oversight.
“There are bright red states like West Virginia that are tired of the federal government not holding corporations accountable for the poisonous chemicals they allow in our food supply,” he said. “The FDA’s slow pace — approving most dyes decades ago — fuels this state action.”
What’s next?
With the Senate’s amendment pushing the statewide ban to 2028, the House must now concur or negotiate a compromise. Retailers face a compliance headache, with some predicting higher costs for dye-free stock as grocers audit labels—a burden that could hit small businesses hardest.
If reconciled, the bill heads to Gov. Morrisey, whose stance remained unclear as of March 6, 2025. Known for challenging federal overreach, Morrisey faces a test balancing health and business interests — industry pressure might sway him toward a veto. Should he sign it, West Virginia will set a precedent that could pressure other states, and perhaps the FDA, to act.
For now, the state’s lawmakers celebrate a victory they believe will resonate beyond its borders.
“Remember this day, because this will be the start of making our state and our children healthier,” Chapman said.
Residents and industry watchers on social media hailed it as a game-changer, though some questioned enforcement feasibility. Whether it sparks a national shift or stumbles under industry pushback, HB 2354 has thrust West Virginia into the spotlight of the food safety debate.
The full text of House Bill 2354 can be accessed on the West Virginia Legislature’s website.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
