SB 764 would amend West Virginia’s Pure Food and Drugs law to specifically classify certain food additives and synthetic dyes as adulterating ingredients when they are added to food. The bill adds legislative findings stating that synthetic food dyes and preservatives have been linked to health concerns, including cancer risk and neurobehavioral effects in children, and says regulation is needed to protect public health. It then revises the state’s adulteration standards to list several substances by name, including butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), propylparaben, and multiple FD&C dyes such as Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Blue No. 1, among others.
The bill also changes enforcement and penalties. It creates a civil-penalty framework for knowingly adulterating or selling food containing the listed additives without disclosure, while preserving the general misdemeanor penalty for other adulterated food or drugs. It further exempts low-volume sellers from the new civil penalty provisions if they sell less than $5,000 per month in aggregate of the affected foods. The bill states that the 2025 amendments to the section will apply to products manufactured on or after January 1, 2028, indicating a delayed effective date for at least part of the regulatory change.
Impact
SB 764 would directly amend West Virginia Code §16-7-2 and §16-7-4, expanding the statutory definition of adulterated food to include products containing specified preservatives and artificial colors, and creating a separate civil penalty scheme for those ingredients. It would affect food manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and potentially pharmacists or other sellers subject to the state’s food and drug adulteration laws, while also preserving existing forfeiture and destruction remedies for adulterated products. The bill would not broadly ban all additives, but it would make the named substances legally significant under state food law and alter how violations are punished.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text, the overall tone is precautionary and public-health oriented, with the sponsor framing the measure as a necessary response to potential health risks from synthetic dyes and preservatives. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to target specific ingredients rather than the entire food supply, which may appeal to consumer-safety advocates while raising concerns from food manufacturers and retailers.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether the listed additives and dyes are sufficiently harmful to justify state-level restrictions and penalties, especially given the bill’s reliance on legislative findings about ongoing research. Another likely issue is the practical impact on food manufacturers and sellers, who would need to reformulate products, adjust labeling, or risk civil penalties and product forfeiture. The exemption for sellers with less than $5,000 in monthly sales suggests an attempt to limit burdens on small businesses, but it may also raise questions about enforcement consistency and whether the law would create uneven treatment across the market.
Controlled substances: other; sentencing guidelines for retail sale of products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine; modify. Amends sec. 13m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.13m). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4947'25