The Fall of Artificial Colours in Food

The quiet exit of artificial food dyes isn’t driven by government bans, but by market logic—when consumer trust is on the line, even Big Food knows that fake colour doesn’t sell.

This week, General Mills announced it will remove all artificial colours from its U.S. products, just hours after Kraft Heinz made a similar commitment. Both companies are giving themselves two years to complete the transition—a realistic timeline, given that reformulating food products can be as complex as redesigning a vehicle. It typically takes two to three years to test, approve, and scale up new ingredients.

What’s extraordinary is that these changes are happening voluntarily. There is no government ban. No regulatory mandate. These companies are simply responding to market pressures—pressures rooted in a growing consumer demand for “clean labels.”

Some attribute this momentum to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative. While better known for his controversial stance on vaccines, RFK Jr. has long advocated for the naturalization of food systems. Now, as Health Secretary, he’s in a position to shape policy—and public sentiment—in ways that may accelerate the move away from artificial ingredients.

Some of the movement is evidence-based. While artificial food dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 5 have been approved by regulators and deemed safe in small doses, concerns remain—particularly among parents and pediatric health professionals. Emerging research suggests a link between certain dyes and behavioral issues, including hyperactivity in children. Europe has already imposed stricter labeling rules and encouraged the use of natural alternatives. North American regulations, by contrast, remain relatively permissive.

But make no mistake: this shift is primarily driven by politics and market optics. Consumers have been expressing discomfort with artificial additives for years, and large Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) companies like General Mills and Kraft Heinz have seen the writing on the wall. Clean-label expectations are no longer niche—they are mainstream.

The implications are significant. With major industry players moving simultaneously, the economics of natural dyes could change rapidly. Today, natural alternatives such as beet juice, turmeric, and carrot extract are more expensive and less stable than synthetic counterparts. But as demand increases and supply chains adapt, these costs are likely to fall. Importantly, when all competitors shift at the same time, the playing field is level—there’s less fear of losing market share to a more colourful, artificially enhanced rival.

Canada will inevitably feel the ripple effects. Many food products on Canadian shelves are imported from U.S. facilities. It is unlikely that manufacturers will maintain separate formulations for a relatively small market like Canada. As a result, Canadians can expect to see more artificial dye-free products, regardless of whether Ottawa acts.

That said, Health Canada may choose to respond, but it may not matter. Canadian manufacturers who export to the U.S. will face mounting pressure to align with cleaner label expectations, especially if U.S. retailers begin to phase out artificially coloured products. While Canada regulates artificial dyes through dosage limits and labeling requirements, public concern continues to rise.

For consumers hoping artificial colours will disappear from their food, change is coming—and soon. And here’s the good news: because the shift is industry-wide, the economics suggest food prices won't rise due to the use of natural dyes. In fact, the transition may lead to better transparency, more innovation, and healthier choices—without a hit to the wallet.