Food Industry Pushes for Federal Override of State Dye‑Labeling Rules, Sparking Clash with Kennedy‑Backed Coalition

A newly formed coalition of major food manufacturers and trade groups is urging Congress to replace the patchwork of state‑by‑state regulations on artificial food colorings and labeling with a single, nationwide framework. The move, announced at a press conference in Washington on Thursday, would shift authority from state legislatures to the federal government, arguing that the current “state‑level kaleidoscope” creates costly compliance hurdles and consumer confusion.The industry alliance, calling itself the National Food Transparency Initiative (NFTI), is led by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and includes several of the country’s largest packaged‑goods companies. In a statement, NFTI President Laura Whitman said, “American families deserve consistent, science‑based information about what’s in their food, not a confusing maze of different rules that vary from one state to the next. A unified federal standard will protect public health while allowing manufacturers to innovate responsibly.”The proposal comes as a direct challenge to a coalition of consumer‑advocacy groups and public‑health officials that has been rallying behind Senator Edward Kennedy’s bipartisan “Clean Label Act.” The legislation, which has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, would require manufacturers to list any synthetic dyes on product packaging and to disclose the specific purpose of each additive. Supporters argue that the measure would empower shoppers to make informed choices and curb the use of controversial colorants linked to hyperactivity and allergic reactions.Kennedy’s initiative has already spurred a wave of state actions. Over the past two years, California, New York, Illinois, and a handful of other states have enacted their own mandatory dye‑labeling statutes, each with its own set of exemptions and reporting requirements. While consumer groups applaud the momentum, the food industry contends that the fragmented approach has forced companies to redesign packaging for each market, inflating costs and leading to supply‑chain inefficiencies.“The reality on the ground is that we’re juggling up to twelve different labeling regimes for the same product,” explained Mark Delgado, senior counsel for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “That not only drives up production costs but also delays the introduction of healthier, lower‑sugar alternatives that could benefit consumers.”Opponents of the NFTI’s federal‑preemption plan argue that it would dilute the protective intent of the state laws and give the industry a seat at the table to set the standards. “This is a classic case of big food trying to rewrite the rules of the game in its favor,” said Maria Alvarez, director of the Consumer Health Alliance, one of the groups in the MAHA (Manufacturers, Advocates, Health Advocates) coalition. “Federal oversight should be stricter, not weaker.”The debate has intensified in recent weeks, with both sides mobilizing lobbyists and launching public‑relations campaigns. Senator Kennedy’s office released a brief highlighting recent studies linking certain synthetic dyes to behavioral issues in children, while the NFTI circulated an industry‑commissioned report claiming that excessive labeling could lead to “label fatigue” and diminish the impact of truly critical health warnings.Lawmakers in the House are expected to take up the issue during the upcoming session. Some moderate Republicans have signaled openness to a compromise that would establish baseline federal standards while preserving the ability of states to impose stricter rules if they wish. Meanwhile, consumer groups are urging the Senate to move swiftly on the Clean Label Act before any preemptive legislation can be introduced.As the showdown continues, shoppers in states with existing dye‑labeling laws may find themselves caught between two competing visions of food transparency: a unified national rulebook championed by the industry, or a mosaic of state‑level protections driven by consumer‑health advocates and the late Senator Kennedy’s legacy. The outcome will likely shape how Americans understand—and trust—the colors on their plates for years to come.