The United States will phase out all petroleum-based synthetic food dyes—including those that give Gatorade and Flamin’ Hot Cheetos their iconic colors—by the end of 2026, according to a stunning policy announcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. While this sweeping change has grabbed global headlines, scientists continue to point out that, so far, there is no clear evidence that these artificial dyes are directly harmful to humans. The move is already stirring debates and questions among Thai consumers and food manufacturers, as many of the same synthetic dyes are widely used in Thailand, particularly in candies, snacks, and beverages beloved by children and adults alike. What does the science really say about these colorful additives? Should Thailand follow America’s lead?
Food colors—known in Thai as สีผสมอาหาร—are a common ingredient in many processed foods, often used to make products more visually appealing and to standardize appearance across batches. According to the FDA, there are currently nine artificial color additives made from petroleum approved for use in the U.S. These include dyes responsible for the bright reds, yellows, oranges, and blues seen in breakfast cereals, drinks, candies, and instant noodles both abroad and here in Thailand. Yet as pressure from health advocates and regulatory bodies builds in the U.S., companies from PepsiCo to Kellogg’s must now find natural alternatives, such as beet juice or carrot extract, to maintain vibrant hues without these synthetic chemicals source.
But what prompted this unprecedented regulation? The backstory lies in decades of research, consumer activism, and a series of regional bans—such as California’s prohibition of Red Dye No. 3 (สีแดง 3) in 2023, citing results from a 1980s study linking high doses to tumors in rats. The policy shift accelerated under the current U.S. administration, which aims to have food companies remove six of the most widely used dyes by 2026 and phase out the final two, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, soon after Reuters.
Yet, as Frederic Bertley, president of the Center of Science & Industry and an immunologist, told CNBC, “There’s no research that we know of that says they’re harmful in humans.” He urges a holistic look at diet rather than obsessing over individual additives. “Minimizing ingesting these things is not bad,” Bertley adds, but cautions that overall lifestyle and dietary patterns play a more significant role in health than consuming or avoiding brightly colored snacks alone.
Still, the question of safety remains nuanced. A widely cited study published in The Lancet did find that food dyes may affect behavior in some children, potentially increasing hyperactivity—a concern raised by Secretary Kennedy and echoed by parents worldwide. Vanessa Rissetto, a registered dietitian and CEO of Culina Health, points out that, “there also isn’t enough evidence to prove that consuming them in large amounts is safe either.” She stresses moderation and mindfulness: “You can eat them. Just eat them moderately… You can’t eat them every single day.”
The FDA has not definitively linked artificial food dyes to cancer or behavioral disorders in humans, but has committed to continuously reviewing the literature, especially regarding children’s health FDA Statement.
Thailand’s own public health authorities closely monitor international regulatory trends, as many of these synthetic dyes are imported or manufactured here under similar standards. While the Thai Food and Drug Administration (อย.-อ.ย.) continues to allow several artificial colorants, local laws mirror those seen in the U.S. and EU, setting strict limits on dosage and labeling requirements. However, emerging science and new bans abroad can heavily influence future updates to Thai regulations, especially since global food supply chains are deeply interconnected. If U.S. manufacturers remove synthetic dyes, products exported to Thailand and ASEAN markets could soon feature new, naturally sourced colors.
The economic implications are considerable. As Bertley warns, “Finding those natural products and using those natural products are just more expensive.” This could drive up costs for Thai food producers and ultimately for consumers, particularly as natural colorings like beetroot, spirulina, or butterfly pea (ดอกอัญชัน—a Thai favorite) become more prevalent in processed snacks. Will consumers accept snacks and sodas with earthier, less vivid hues, or will the loss of familiar colors dampen their appetites? Bertley is pragmatic: “If cereals don’t taste as good, because they’re not red, yellow, green and blue, but they’re all off-white colored, that’s not a health harm.”
Beyond the science, there is a deeply cultural aspect to food coloring in Thailand. From kanom look choup (fruit-shaped mung bean desserts) to richly colored drinks at street markets, visual appeal is a cherished part of the Thai food experience. Natural colorings such as pandan, turmeric, and roselle have long been incorporated into traditional recipes, but the convenience and cost-effectiveness of synthetic dyes have seen them dominate mass-produced treats for decades.
Internationally, research remains ongoing. Recent toxicological studies suggest that there are indeed risks at high doses—such as potential liver effects from tartrazine in rodents—but human evidence so far is weak or absent PubMed study on tartrazine, and regulatory bodies like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. FDA agree that food dyes are “generally recognized as safe” when used appropriately Wikipedia. Nevertheless, concerns about behavioral effects in children, environmental contamination from dye-laden wastewater, and rare allergic reactions fuel the public debate. A study published earlier this year highlighted that artificial dyes, along with sweeteners, are emerging environmental contaminants with uncertain long-term impacts PubMed abstract.
Going forward, Thailand is likely to see a gradual shift to “clean label” products—snacks, desserts, and drinks made with plant-based or mineral colorings, in line with global trends. Major food brands may proactively reformulate for export, while health-conscious Thais could increasingly seek out options free from petroleum-based dyes. The Ministry of Public Health and food industry associations are watching the U.S. transition closely, and the next few years could bring enhanced food labeling, revised import standards, or voluntary reformulations right here in the Kingdom.
So what should Thai families do? Experts and credible health authorities agree: moderation and variety remain the best advice. Occasional consumption of brightly colored snacks is unlikely to pose major risks according to current evidence, but young children, those sensitive to certain additives, or individuals seeking to “eat clean” can minimize artificial dye intake by checking labels and favoring products colored with plant sources, such as butterfly pea, pandan, roselle, and turmeric—a practice already common in traditional Thai sweets and drinks.
For those in food manufacturing, hospitality, or education sectors, now is the time to monitor regulatory trends and consider early adoption of natural alternatives. Consumers can voice preferences through their purchases, encourage transparency from producers, and balance tradition with new health perspectives. Food, after all, is not just sustenance but also identity, joy, and a bridge between cultures old and new.
As this colorful debate evolves, Thai society has an opportunity to harmonize cherished culinary aesthetics with the latest in food safety science, ultimately ensuring both the vibrancy and the wellbeing of families across the country.
For further information and updates, see the full coverage at the original CNBC article, the recent Reuters report, and scientific background on Wikipedia.