Should NH ban artificial food dye in school meals?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda may be polarizing when it comes to policies around vaccines and autism, but there is bipartisan interest in his goal to ban artificial food dyes. This year New Hampshire legislators are bringing that mission to the state level.

Two state senators and two state representatives are sponsoring SB 577, a bill to ban color additives in school meals and other food offered by public schools. The bill specifically mentions nine petroleum-based colors recognized by the Food and Drug Administration, such as Red Dye 40 and Yellow Number 5.

Artificial food dyes may harm children

Color additives are found in bright foods such as M&M’s and Doritos, but they may also be added to less obvious foods, such as juices, canned vegetables, sausage casings, and yogurts. Notably, these food additives have no nutritional value; their purpose is to make food look more appealing.

A 2021 assessment from California's Environmental Protection Agency concluded that synthetic food dyes are associated with behavioral issues in children, such as ADHD. Many other countries require warning labels on foods with artificial dyes about the impact on children’s behavior and attention.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also revoked the authorization for one food dye, Red No. 3, after studies showed large doses caused cancer in rats.

A “Statement of Findings” in New Hampshire’s SB 577 reads, “Banning these dyes specifically in schools—where we should be doing everything we can to foster kids' physical and emotional health—is a sensible middle ground.”

A patchwork landscape may raise costs

New Hampshire is hardly the first state to consider this issue. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, legislators introduced dozens of similar bills last year. California, Utah, West Virginia, and Virginia were the first states to ban artificial dyes in school food.

While that’s a remarkably bipartisan mix, some stakeholders argue that states should hold off until the federal government creates universal guidelines. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is already working to remove petroleum-based color additives from the food supply. Until then, schools with state bans will have to spend more time and money to filter out artificially colored food.

In the fiscal note for SB 577, the Department of Education said a ban would increase costs for school districts related to policy changes as well as the purchase and preparation of whole food products that do not contain color additives. In a year when schools are already facing skyrocketing insurance and special education costs, taxpayers might prefer New Hampshire to wait for the federal government to ban these dyes nationwide.

Of course, the ban in SB 577 wouldn’t go into effect until January 1, 2028, giving the federal government some time to act.

Another New Hampshire bill, SB 639, would more generally study the health and safety impacts of Red Dye 40 and other food additives. That would give the federal government an even longer onramp to a ban. However, in New Hampshire many legislators believe study committees are a waste of resources.

Make your voice heard on artificial dyes

If you believe New Hampshire should ban artificial dyes in schools, or if you think the state should wait for the federal government, you have a chance to make your voice heard. The Senate Education Committee will hold a public hearing on SB 577 on Tuesday, January 20, at 10 a.m.

There will also be a public hearing on SB 639, the study bill, in the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday, January 13 at 10:30 a.m.

Not sure how to participate in a public hearing? Check out our Advocacy Toolkit for step-by-step instructions.

If you can’t make either hearing in person, you can register your opinion “for” or “against” a bill online. This has less impact than in-person testimony but is still an opportunity to make your voice heard. Check out our tutorial here.