HB3722, titled the “Do or Dye Act,” would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make certain food products legally “adulterated” if they contain specified synthetic color additives. The bill targets two groups of additives on a phased timeline: beginning December 31, 2025, it would deem food containing “qualified color additives” unsafe and adulterated, and beginning December 31, 2026, it would do the same for a broader set of “covered color additives.”
The bill specifically names Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Green No. 3, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Citrus Red No. 2, and Orange B, and also captures additives that are “substantially similar” to those listed. By redefining foods containing these additives as adulterated under section 402(c) of the FDCA, the bill would effectively prohibit their use in food products sold in the United States unless the law or FDA enforcement posture changed. It would not create a new labeling regime; instead, it would alter the legal status of foods containing the specified dyes.
If enacted, the bill would significantly affect food manufacturers, processors, importers, and retailers that use synthetic dyes in cereals, beverages, candies, baked goods, snacks, and other processed foods. It would also affect FDA enforcement by requiring the agency to treat these additives as unsafe for food use on the bill’s effective dates, potentially triggering reformulation, supply-chain changes, and compliance costs across the food industry.
Because no committee transcript or vote history is provided, there is no recorded debate or roll-call sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a strong precautionary or anti-additive policy stance, likely appealing to supporters concerned about food safety, children’s health, and artificial ingredients. At the same time, it would likely face opposition from food and ingredient manufacturers and others who rely on approved color additives, especially because the bill would override existing FDA approvals and certifications on a fixed timetable.
The main point of contention is whether these color additives should be removed from food through federal statute despite their current regulatory status under the FDCA. Supporters would likely argue that synthetic dyes should be treated as unsafe or unnecessary, while opponents would likely emphasize FDA authority, scientific evidence, product formulation impacts, and the economic burden of reformulation. The “substantially similar” language may also be contentious because it could create uncertainty about which additional additives are covered.
The bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by changing the legal status of foods containing specified color additives, deeming them adulterated under section 402(c) and unsafe under section 721 on staggered effective dates. This would directly affect FDA regulation of color additives and would pressure manufacturers, importers, and retailers to remove or replace the listed dyes and any substantially similar additives from food products.
No committee discussion or vote data is available, so there is no documented legislative sentiment in the provided materials. The bill text suggests a reform-oriented, consumer-safety-driven approach to banning synthetic food dyes, which would likely be supported by advocates of cleaner food ingredients and opposed by food industry stakeholders and those concerned about regulatory overreach.
The central controversy is the bill’s categorical treatment of FDA-approved color additives as unsafe and adulterated, which would override existing approvals on a fixed schedule. Likely supporters include consumer health advocates and lawmakers skeptical of artificial dyes, while likely opponents include food manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, and others who would face reformulation costs and uncertainty from the bill’s broad “substantially similar” language.