Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT), a new, conservative-aligned coalition, has launched a campaign urging Congress to “correct a maze of state-by-state-laws” that restrict or prohibit the use of colorants, additives, and ingredients in foods.

AFIT is led by Senior Advisors Julie Gunlock, a self-described conservative policy advocate focused on food and nutrition, parenting, and science-based issues; and Andy Koenig, a former Policy Special Assistant to President Trump. The group is supported by major food industry associations and brands, many of which have made voluntary commitments to phase out synthetic food dyes and other additives, following pressures from the Trump Administration and U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.).

Industry associations and companies backing AFIT include, but are not limited to:

• The American Frozen Food Institute
• The Consumer Brands Association*
• FMI—the Food Industry Association
• The Meat Institute
• The National Restaurant Association
• Conagra Brands*
• General Mills*
• Hormel Foods
• Kraft Heinz*
• Nestlé*
• PepsiCo*
• Sysco
• Tyson Foods*
• The Coca-Cola Company.

*The Consumer Brands Association, Conagra Brands, General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Nestlé U.S.A., PepsiCo, and Tyson Foods are firms that have made explicit commitments to phase out artificial food dyes from all or some of their products.

Americans for Ingredient Transparency’s Policy Priorities

AFIT calls the emerging patchwork of state laws on food additives “well-intentioned efforts” that are “increasing confusion, rather than providing Americans with the clarity they deserve.” With the goal of stopping states from taking matters into their own hands, AFIT advocates for “one uniform national standard for ingredient safety and transparency rooted in science.”

Additional policy areas in which AFIT is prepared to work with Congress include:

• Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) reform—which Secretary Kennedy has directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to explore, with a proposed rule in the works
• Front-of-package labeling reform
• QR code reform, meaning, a law requiring a QR code on packaging that would enable consumers to scan and instantly access product information.

Americans for Ingredient Transparency vs. RFK Jr. and MAHA

Although AFIT says it is “ready to work with the Trump Administration” on federal food reform, Secretary Kennedy is best known for his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, which is cited as inspiration for several of the pending and passed state-level food laws that AFIT oppose.

At the same time, despite a crackdown on synthetic food dyes, chemical ingredients, and other additives being a stated tenet of Secretary Kennedy’s MAHA initiative, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and FDA, under his leadership, have done little in the way of enforceable rulemaking or statutory changes to legally require industry to cease the use of ingredients. Secretary Kennedy has acknowledged that FDA does not have any formal agreement with industry to phase out the use of synthetic food dyes or any other ingredients, relying on voluntary compliance with pressures from himself, HHS, and the public.

The Current Landscape of State-Level Bans on Food Dyes and Additives

At present, the only enforceable bans or restrictions on the sale or manufacture of foods containing certain additives and colorants have been enacted at the state level—beginning with the passage of the California Food Safety Act in 2023 and the California School Food Safety Act in 2024, before MAHA was a household term, and prior to the Trump Administration and Secretary Kennedy taking office.

More recently, Texas and Louisiana have passed laws requiring a warning label on foods containing any one of more than 40 additives, with the bills’ sponsors aligning their legislations with the MAHA movement. West Virginia also passed a law banning the sale of foods containing any one of seven dyes or two additives by 2028. Other states that ban foods containing certain colorants and additives from being sold in public schools include Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Consumer Groups Stand Against AFIT, Support State Legislation

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which recently launched a tracker tool of voluntary company commitments and state laws regarding food dyes, expressed its support for state-led efforts to prohibit the sale or manufacture of foods containing certain additives, as well as its lack of faith in voluntary industry commitments. “In addition to federal action, we strongly encourage state legislatures and governors in both red and blue states to explore taking action to protect consumers from unsafe food ingredients,” said Peter G. Lurie, M.D., CSPI President.

“As anyone who has studied food industry voluntary commitments would know, companies sometimes make good on their commitments, sometimes they reverse their commitments, and sometimes their pledges are so narrowly tailored or vague as to be no commitment at all,” Dr. Lurie added. “[Secretary] Kennedy’s voluntary strategy opens the door for industry to offer empty promises and backtrack on its commitments when people stop paying attention.”

Consumer Reports has also taken a strong stance against AFIT. Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy, said, “If there were truth-in-labeling laws governing the naming of campaigns, this coalition would be prohibited from disguising their true intention, which is to wipe out all of the state laws that protect consumers from harmful chemical ingredients in food and hold the industry accountable. It’s disappointing to see these giant food companies investing millions of dollars on high-priced lobbyists and ad campaigns to mislead the public and policymakers instead of removing toxic ingredients from their products.”