FDA Loosens the Reins on ‘No Artificial Colors’ Claims

Today we’re breaking down a recent regulatory update from the FDA that landed on February 5th, 2026, which deals with how food companies can use the phrase “no artificial colors” on their labels. And even though the laws haven’t changed, the practical impact could be substantial. It’s an update that may seem small on the surface but touches marketing, compliance, and consumer perception all at once.

Read the article

• Update for Big Food: FDA Announces New Policy on “No Artificial Colors” Labeling

About the author

• Al Windham 

Transcript

Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.

With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.

HOST 1:
Welcome back to Womble Perspectives. Today we’re breaking down a recent regulatory update from the FDA that landed on February 5th, 2026, which deals with how food companies can use the phrase “no artificial colors” on their labels. And even though the laws haven’t changed, the practical impact could be substantial. It’s an update that may seem small on the surface but touches marketing, compliance, and consumer perception all at once.

HOST 2:
The FDA didn’t rewrite any regulations, but they clarified how they plan to enforce existing ones going forward. And anytime the agency signals a shift in enforcement priority, companies take notice. 

HOST 1:
So let’s start with the basics. The FDA says it does not intend to take enforcement action under the misbranding section of the FD&C Act when food manufacturers use certain voluntary "no artificial colors" claims. But the catch is that this only applies if the product contains zero FDA-certified synthetic colors. These are the familiar petroleum‑derived colors like FD&C Red No. 40 or Blue No. 1. If any of those are in the product, the claims are off the table.

HOST 2:
Right, and the FDA even listed the exact claims they’re giving companies breathing room to use. Things like “Made without artificial food colors,” “No artificial color,” and “No added artificial coloring” are all covered. But again, only if the product truly contains no certified synthetic colors. So the policy is flexible, but it’s definitely not a free-for-all. Manufacturers still need to be absolutely sure they meet the criteria.

HOST 1:
What’s really interesting is why the FDA is doing this. They basically admitted that the current regulatory definition of “artificial color” is broad in a way that doesn’t reflect modern industry practices. It lumps natural and synthetic colors together, which confuses consumers and complicates labeling decisions. Companies that move to naturally derived color additives still can’t confidently say “no artificial colors,” because under the definition, those natural colors can still be considered artificial. The FDA recognized that this framework hasn’t aged well.

HOST 2:
Exactly. The agency wants to encourage a broader industry transition away from synthetic FD&C certified colors. Many natural color alternatives have been approved or had their uses expanded recently, and the FDA clearly wants to support that momentum. So, this enforcement discretion is more than a clarification, it’s a nudge toward “cleaner” labeling trends. It aligns with where consumer preferences are heading anyway.

HOST 1:
But there are also limitations, and the FDA was very explicit here. First, nothing in the law itself actually changed — the FD&C Act and all existing color additive regulations remain exactly the same. This is purely about enforcement priorities. Companies are still responsible for ensuring all labeling is truthful and not misleading, which isn’t a small responsibility. And they still need to keep documentation to support any labeling claims they make.

HOST 2:
Right, and enforcement discretion isn’t a legal shield. Even though the FDA says they don’t plan to enforce these specific claims under federal law, that doesn’t stop state attorneys general, consumer class actions, or private plaintiffs from bringing challenges. A label could still be scrutinized under state deceptive practices laws, for example. So, while the FDA is stepping back slightly, other risks remain fully in play. Companies that jump on these claims too quickly without vetting them could land in trouble.

HOST 1:
For food manufacturers, this creates both an opportunity and a responsibility. On one hand, companies that have invested in removing synthetic colors now have clearer flexibility to communicate that to consumers without worrying as much about FDA enforcement. That’s a big win for marketing teams trying to keep pace with clean-label expectations. But they also need to be extremely careful that their supply chains and color additive inventories are aligned with the claims they’re making. One misstep could unravel the whole thing.

HOST 2:
Agreed — and this also highlights the growing importance of cross-functional review. Marketing may want to use these claims, but legal, regulatory, and quality teams need to confirm that every ingredient matches the claim exactly. It’s also wise for companies to monitor state-level legal trends, because those can shift faster than federal guidance. And of course, consumer expectations aren’t always aligned with regulatory definitions. Clear internal communication is critical to avoid confusion or risk.

HOST 1:
Exactly — more flexibility, but not less responsibility. The bottom line is that companies eliminating certified synthetic colors now have a clearer path to using “no artificial colors”‑type claims, but they shouldn’t assume this is a legal safe harbor. It’s a signal from FDA, not a shield. And like all labeling matters, the details matter. 

Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.

Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.