ReportWire

Tag: food company

  • Walmart will remove dyes and other additives from its US house-brand products by 2027

    TODAY– WALMART ANNOUNCED IT PLANS TO REMOVE SYNTHETIC FOOD DYES AND 30 OTHER INGREDIENTS FROM ITS STORE BRANDS BY JANUARY 20-27. IT INCLUDES SOME PRESERVATIVES, ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS AND FAT SUBSTITUTES. WALMART SAYS THIS WILL AFFECT ABOUT A THOUSAND OF ITS PRODUCTS. THIS INVOLVES ITS BRANDS INCLUDING GREAT VALUE, MARKETSIDE, AND BETTER GOODS. EARLIER THIS Y

    Walmart will remove dyes and other additives from its US house-brand products by 2027

    Updated: 12:01 PM PDT Oct 2, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Walmart will remove artificial dyes and 30 other additives — such as artificial sweeteners, fat substitutes and various preservatives — from its U.S. private-brand food and beverage products, the company announced Wednesday. The decision marks the latest corporate move in response to evolving consumer tastes and the yearslong crackdown on food additives that began with state lawmakers, particularly those in California. The momentum has picked up steam this year amid Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement.The change in Walmart brands, including Great Value, Marketside, Freshness Guaranteed and bettergoods, will be in full effect by 2027.”Our customers have told us that they want products made with simpler, more familiar ingredients — and we’ve listened,” Walmart US President and CEO John Furner said in a news release. “By eliminating synthetic dyes and other ingredients, we’re reinforcing our promise to deliver affordable food that families can feel good about.”The 11 dyes being removed are blue dyes No. 1 and No. 2; green dye No. 3; red dyes No. 3, No. 4 and No. 40; yellow dyes No. 5 and No. 6; citrus red dye; orange B dye; and canthaxanthin, an orange-red pigment naturally found in some bacteria, algae, fungi, crustaceans, and tissues and egg yolk from wild birds. Except for canthaxanthin and orange B dye, the other colorants are made from petroleum. All of these dyes are commonly used to make food and beverage products brightly colored and more appealing to consumers.The push to rid the food system of artificial dyes stems from concerns about negative impacts on animal and human health, including a potentially increased risk of cancer and neurobehavioral issues. California banned red dye No. 3 statewide in October 2023, followed by a ban of six other common dyes in school foods in September.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned red dye No. 3 in January, effective for food on Jan. 15, 2027, and for drugs on Jan. 18, 2028 — but the agency has since asked food companies to eliminate the dye sooner. In March, West Virginia passed the most sweeping law thus far, prohibiting seven dyes and two preservatives.The other additives Walmart plans to remove include preservatives such as butylparaben and propylparaben; fat substitutes such as synthetic trans fatty acid and sucrose polyester; and artificial sweeteners advantame and neotame.”This commitment is a bold declaration and response to consumer sentiment that has become increasingly wary of the long list of chemicals found in so many processed foods,” Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, said in a statement. “Walmart’s decision shows that food companies don’t have to wait for the FDA’s regulatory process to catch up with the science.”Several of the ingredients Walmart is nixing, including red dye No. 3, are already banned or not commonly used. About 90% of Walmart’s house-brand products are already free of synthetic dyes, according to the news release.”Walmart accounts for 25% to 30% of all grocery sales in the United States and anything it does reverberates throughout the entire industry,” Dr. Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor Emerita of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, said via email. “If it is removing the artificial colors from its house brands, other retailers … will have to follow suit.”Major food companies including Kraft Heinz, General Mills, WK Kellogg Co, The Campbell’s Company, PepsiCo and Utz have pledged to remove artificial dyes by 2027, Nestle added — all following the Trump administration’s April request that companies voluntarily alter their product formulations.”This is a big MAHA win, and one that food advocates have urged for decades,” Nestle said. “I’m hoping MAHA will build on this and now take on more important issues.”State actions also likely influenced the Walmart decision, Dr. Jennifer Pomeranz, associate professor of public health policy and management at the New York University School of Global Public Health, said via email.”The food companies are not going to create ‘better’ products for one state — especially California which has one of the biggest economies in the world — or for several states, so they are forced to change the ingredients in their food nationally,” she added.If you want to avoid food dyes and other additives until various restrictions, bans and reformulations take place, reading ingredient lists when you shop is always your best bet, experts said.On ingredient lists, these artificial dyes are sometimes referred to using the following terms:Red dye No. 3: red 3, FD&C Red No. 3 or erythrosineRed dye No. 40: red 40, FD&C Red No. 40 or Allura Red ACBlue dye No. 1: blue 1, FD&C Blue No. 1 or Brilliant Blue FCFBlue dye No. 2: FD&C Blue No. 2 or indigotineGreen dye No. 3: FD&C Green No. 3 or Fast Green FCFYellow dye No. 5: yellow 5, FD&C Yellow No. 5 or tartrazineYellow dye No. 6: yellow 6, FD&C Yellow No. 6 or sunset yellowDyes listed with the word “lake” in any ingredient list indicate the dye is a water-insoluble version, meaning it can dissolve in oily foods or low-moisture foods.Since these ingredients are typically found in ultraprocessed foods, not eating those is a shortcut to eliminating the additives from your diet. Ultraprocessed foods are made with industrial techniques and ingredients “never or rarely used in kitchens,” according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. These foods are typically low in fiber and high in calories, added sugar, refined grains and fats, sodium, and additives, all of which are designed to help make food more appealing.Accordingly, shifting away from these products may result in more significant health benefits, as numerous studies have linked consumption of ultraprocessed foods with health issues including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, premature death, cancer, depression, cognitive decline, stroke and sleep disorders.

    Walmart will remove artificial dyes and 30 other additives — such as artificial sweeteners, fat substitutes and various preservatives — from its U.S. private-brand food and beverage products, the company announced Wednesday. The decision marks the latest corporate move in response to evolving consumer tastes and the yearslong crackdown on food additives that began with state lawmakers, particularly those in California. The momentum has picked up steam this year amid Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement.

    The change in Walmart brands, including Great Value, Marketside, Freshness Guaranteed and bettergoods, will be in full effect by 2027.

    “Our customers have told us that they want products made with simpler, more familiar ingredients — and we’ve listened,” Walmart US President and CEO John Furner said in a news release. “By eliminating synthetic dyes and other ingredients, we’re reinforcing our promise to deliver affordable food that families can feel good about.”

    The 11 dyes being removed are blue dyes No. 1 and No. 2; green dye No. 3; red dyes No. 3, No. 4 and No. 40; yellow dyes No. 5 and No. 6; citrus red dye; orange B dye; and canthaxanthin, an orange-red pigment naturally found in some bacteria, algae, fungi, crustaceans, and tissues and egg yolk from wild birds. Except for canthaxanthin and orange B dye, the other colorants are made from petroleum. All of these dyes are commonly used to make food and beverage products brightly colored and more appealing to consumers.

    The push to rid the food system of artificial dyes stems from concerns about negative impacts on animal and human health, including a potentially increased risk of cancer and neurobehavioral issues. California banned red dye No. 3 statewide in October 2023, followed by a ban of six other common dyes in school foods in September.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned red dye No. 3 in January, effective for food on Jan. 15, 2027, and for drugs on Jan. 18, 2028 — but the agency has since asked food companies to eliminate the dye sooner. In March, West Virginia passed the most sweeping law thus far, prohibiting seven dyes and two preservatives.

    The other additives Walmart plans to remove include preservatives such as butylparaben and propylparaben; fat substitutes such as synthetic trans fatty acid and sucrose polyester; and artificial sweeteners advantame and neotame.

    “This commitment is a bold declaration and response to consumer sentiment that has become increasingly wary of the long list of chemicals found in so many processed foods,” Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, said in a statement. “Walmart’s decision shows that food companies don’t have to wait for the FDA’s regulatory process to catch up with the science.”

    Several of the ingredients Walmart is nixing, including red dye No. 3, are already banned or not commonly used. About 90% of Walmart’s house-brand products are already free of synthetic dyes, according to the news release.

    “Walmart accounts for 25% to 30% of all grocery sales in the United States and anything it does reverberates throughout the entire industry,” Dr. Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor Emerita of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, said via email. “If it is removing the artificial colors from its house brands, other retailers … will have to follow suit.”

    Major food companies including Kraft Heinz, General Mills, WK Kellogg Co, The Campbell’s Company, PepsiCo and Utz have pledged to remove artificial dyes by 2027, Nestle added — all following the Trump administration’s April request that companies voluntarily alter their product formulations.

    “This is a big MAHA win, and one that food advocates have urged for decades,” Nestle said. “I’m hoping MAHA will build on this and now take on more important issues.”

    State actions also likely influenced the Walmart decision, Dr. Jennifer Pomeranz, associate professor of public health policy and management at the New York University School of Global Public Health, said via email.

    “The food companies are not going to create ‘better’ products for one state — especially California which has one of the biggest economies in the world — or for several states, so they are forced to change the ingredients in their food nationally,” she added.

    If you want to avoid food dyes and other additives until various restrictions, bans and reformulations take place, reading ingredient lists when you shop is always your best bet, experts said.

    On ingredient lists, these artificial dyes are sometimes referred to using the following terms:

    • Red dye No. 3: red 3, FD&C Red No. 3 or erythrosine
    • Red dye No. 40: red 40, FD&C Red No. 40 or Allura Red AC
    • Blue dye No. 1: blue 1, FD&C Blue No. 1 or Brilliant Blue FCF
    • Blue dye No. 2: FD&C Blue No. 2 or indigotine
    • Green dye No. 3: FD&C Green No. 3 or Fast Green FCF
    • Yellow dye No. 5: yellow 5, FD&C Yellow No. 5 or tartrazine
    • Yellow dye No. 6: yellow 6, FD&C Yellow No. 6 or sunset yellow

    Dyes listed with the word “lake” in any ingredient list indicate the dye is a water-insoluble version, meaning it can dissolve in oily foods or low-moisture foods.

    Since these ingredients are typically found in ultraprocessed foods, not eating those is a shortcut to eliminating the additives from your diet. Ultraprocessed foods are made with industrial techniques and ingredients “never or rarely used in kitchens,” according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. These foods are typically low in fiber and high in calories, added sugar, refined grains and fats, sodium, and additives, all of which are designed to help make food more appealing.

    Accordingly, shifting away from these products may result in more significant health benefits, as numerous studies have linked consumption of ultraprocessed foods with health issues including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, premature death, cancer, depression, cognitive decline, stroke and sleep disorders.

    Source link

  • Opinion: California didn’t ban Skittles. But it tackled a food safety problem the FDA hasn’t solved

    Opinion: California didn’t ban Skittles. But it tackled a food safety problem the FDA hasn’t solved

    Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law California’s Food Safety Act banning four ingredients that are linked to health risks. These substances — red dye no. 3, propyl paraben, brominated vegetable oil and potassium bromate, currently found in some candies, sodas and baked goods — will not be allowed in the state’s foods starting in 2027. All four are banned from foods in the European Union (which only allows red no. 3 in candied and cocktail cherries), but, California aside, they remain perfectly legal in the U.S.

    New York is considering a similar law that would also ban a fifth substance previously included in California’s law — titanium dioxide, which is used in Skittles. That’s why the California measure got dubbed the “Skittles ban” (a name that stuck even after titanium dioxide was cut from the draft).

    California is the first state to go beyond Food and Drug Administration regulations by banning the other four additives. Should it have deferred to the FDA?

    The challenges facing the FDA make the case for state action. Sluggish and irregular safety reviews, a fast-track ingredient approval loophole that is abused by manufacturers, and a focus on acute food poisoning over long-term diet all hinder the agency’s ability to address the growing risks associated with our food supply.

    The FDA is required to review the safety of any new food additive and grant approval before it can be used. If evidence indicates that an additive is unsafe, the FDA is supposed to decline or limit its use. Three of the substances in California’s law were approved by this standard review: potassium bromate, Red Dye No. 3 and brominated vegetable oil. But the FDA is reevaluating the safety of the latter two and has proposed, though not finalized, a rule to ban brominated vegetable oil from the food supply.

    The fourth substance set to be banned in California, propyl paraben, was approved through what’s effectively a loophole in the FDA system. Ingredients classified as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) are exempt from the additive category and thus from careful FDA review. Congress crafted this exemption to be used infrequently, primarily to keep common ingredients like salt and spices on the market without an onerous approval process. But as food companies sought to avoid the rigorous food additive review, GRAS applications piled up.

    Without the resources to research the applications, and lacking further support from Congress, the FDA allowed manufacturers to skip the application and determine GRAS status with only a “voluntary notification process.” This means companies can choose whether to let the FDA know they believe their substance is GRAS — in which case FDA can affirm that decision — or they can self-affirm GRAS status and market the substance without ever notifying the FDA. Thousands of substances have entered the food supply this way. Even when companies voluntarily notify, as was the case for propyl paraben in 1984, the FDA does not conduct a full safety review to affirm GRAS status.

    Since GRAS notification is voluntary, the FDA does not know all the substances in our food supply. One study found that of the 4,284 GRAS determinations made as of January 2011, just 582 were cleared through the FDA’s voluntary notification process.

    Although the FDA has the authority to revoke GRAS status or an additive approval, the agency reviews the safety of greenlighted ingredients sporadically, rather than regularly — and often slowly.

    Take for example, trans fat from partially hydrogenated oils, a GRAS substance used for decades in commercial baked goods and other products. A 2004 citizen petition asked the FDA to look into the safety of these oils, but it wasn’t until 2015 that the FDA determined that they were not GRAS and banned them in food starting in 2020. By the time the FDA got around to this, New York City had already banned them in restaurants (in 2006), as had California (in 2008).

    The under-regulation of food additives is part of a larger challenge. FDA vetting focuses more on acute risks, such as food-borne illness, than on longer-term risks from diet. Of the agency’s more than $1 billion budget for its foods program, only 7% goes to nutrition and labeling, its major strategies to address diet-related disease. Yet while foodborne illness causes about 3,000 deaths per year, 1.5 million deaths in 2018 — more than half of all deaths that year — resulted from conditions linked to diet.

    But states moving to ban substances isn’t a perfect solution either. They generally don’t have the resources to conduct comprehensive safety reviews, and it would be more efficient to beef up the FDA’s infrastructure than to duplicate costly systems across states and potentially create a confusing patchwork of bans.

    We desperately need change at the federal level. The Government Accountability Office reported on flaws in the GRAS system in 2010, and the FDA has not addressed the majority of the recommendations, such as regularly reviewing the safety of GRAS substances and requiring companies to provide basic information about these substances. The FDA urgently needs additional Congressional funding to take action on food safety for all ingredients, with a particular eye toward diet-related chronic disease.

    In the meantime, states like California will have to keep taking the lead on evaluating harmful ingredients and show the federal government how it can be done.

    Emily Broad Leib is a clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School and faculty director of the school’s Food Law and Policy Clinic.

    Emily Broad Leib

    Source link