News

Could the US manufacturing space benefit from simplified food laws?

25 Apr 2025

Following a US ban on artificial food dyes, research examines the US food manufacturing and regulatory landscape.

Researchers from the University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences explore food manufacturers’ decision making under varying state regulation in a paper published in the Journal of Food Distribution Research.

Could the US manufacturing space benefit from simplified food laws?
© AdobeStock/ultramansk

Researchers produced a modelling framework predicting potential responses as part of their study. They then spoke with food manufacturers to confirm that their model aligned with producers’ actions to tackle policy changes.

Examining food dye bans

In the US, individual states have increasingly advocated banning artificial food dyes. In January 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked manufacturers’ use of Red No. 3 food dye. In March 2025, West Virginia halted authorisation on seven artificial food dyes in food products sold within the state. Introducing individual rules means manufacturers must comply with specific regulations on food manufacturing practices, permissible ingredients, and product labelling.

“In the case of the recently enacted state laws banning various food additives, food manufacturers are thus compelled to satisfy the broad set of federal requirements and the individual requirements applying in any of the regional markets in which they operate,” Maria Kalaitzandonakes, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, told Ingredients Network.

The new University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign study examines how the food manufacturing space responds to state regulations and what drives the development and implementation of these laws.

Food manufacturers selling US products must meet national regulatory requirements, such as nutrition labelling. Simultaneously, manufacturers must adhere to each state’s regulations for selling their products.

“The food manufacturers I’ve spoken to work hard to make sure they are in compliance with the law and try to ‘see the writing on the wall’, to prepare for regulations they expect to see enacted in the near future,” said Kalaitzandonakes.

As a response, manufacturers and industry groups must stay current on impending legislation to prepare for potentially costly responses to comply with any new rules.

Restrictions affect regulatory response

Several core challenges exist for manufacturers regarding how they respond to state regulations, like the recent food dye bans.

“State-by-state regulations create hurdles for interstate trade, especially when the laws lack harmonisation, for instance, by differing product coverage or implementation timelines,” said Kalaitzandonakes.

For many food manufacturers, producing a state- or region-specific version of a product can create significant logistical challenges. Many of the state food laws specifically hold food manufacturers liable for any violations of the law.

Food manufacturers, therefore, are expected to keep non-compliant products off shelves.

“Many food manufacturers we spoke with elected to produce a single uniform product for nationwide sale that met the strictest state requirements,” Kalaitzandonakes said.

More generally, when a state regulates food products sold within its borders, these rules affect products sold across the country, which manufacturers must be aware of and account for in their operations.

Simplifying the legal compliance process

Making regulatory compliance easier for manufacturers is necessary to improve the wider food law sector.

“A theme that we uncovered in our research is that food manufacturers and industry groups will often seek federal intervention to create a single national standard,” said Kalaitzandonakes. Recent cases into GMO labelling requirements, allergen labels and other contexts required this federal intervention.

Similar dynamics are playing out currently as food industry leaders met with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to seek federal guidance on regulatory issues affecting the US food system. “It will be interesting to see how this process evolves as more states establish distinct regulations and the need for a consistent regulatory environment becomes more acute,” added Kalaitzandonakes.

Speaking with industry representatives, the researchers identified that in the absence of a single federal standard, increased harmonisation between different states’ laws would reduce the regulatory challenges currently faced by food manufacturers.

“Beyond that, research has shown that the costs of reformulating products to use substitute ingredients increase substantially when turnaround times are shorter,” said Kalaitzandonakes. Another way to decrease hurdles for firms is to introduce longer compliance timelines.

Related news

EU Breakfast Directive: What food brands must do before June deadline

EU Breakfast Directive: What food brands must do before June deadline

20 Apr 2026

Honey origin labelling, higher fruit content for jams, and new categories for reduced-sugar juices: What must brands do to comply with the EU Breakfast Directive?

Read more 
Dog food brand shakes up sector with ‘human-quality’ meat

Dog food brand shakes up sector with ‘human-quality’ meat

17 Apr 2026

UK pet food startup Years designs its premium meals based on a dog’s breed, life stage, and health, using wholefood recipes and clear plastic packaging.

Read more 
Emissions-reduction technologies can help brands hit green goals

Emissions-reduction technologies can help brands hit green goals

14 Apr 2026

Emissions-reduction technologies can help global manufacturers lower their environmental impact while increasing operational efficiency and making savings.

Read more 
Securing sweetness in bakery, without the sweetener effect

Securing sweetness in bakery, without the sweetener effect

13 Apr 2026

EFSA has confirmed sucralose cannot be used in most bakery applications. So, which sweeteners can manufacturers of healthy indulgent baked goods use?

Read more 
The rise of CPG disruptor brands

The rise of CPG disruptor brands

9 Apr 2026

Bold, relevant, and agile disruptor brands, such as Olly and Poppi are reshaping consumer packaged goods (CPG) and driving growth in stagnant areas – reframing everything about the categories they are showing up in, say experts.

Read more 
Rising automation requires clear risk management strategy

Rising automation requires clear risk management strategy

6 Apr 2026

Automation is helping manufacturers reduce bottlenecks but it also comes with risks. Successful brands will have clear risk management strategies.

Read more 
Danone calls for unified definition of ‘healthy’

Danone calls for unified definition of ‘healthy’

1 Apr 2026

Danone is calling on government and industry stakeholders to develop a unified definition of “healthy” in order to reduce consumer confusion and encourage reformulation.

Read more 
Oatly loses legal battle over ‘Post milk generation’ claim

Oatly loses legal battle over ‘Post milk generation’ claim

26 Mar 2026

Oatly has lost a long legal battle with the UK dairy industry and cannot use the term “Post milk generation” in its marketing.

Read more 
FDA broadens scope for ‘no artificial colours’ claim

FDA broadens scope for ‘no artificial colours’ claim

23 Mar 2026

US food brands can now make a “no artificial colours” claim when using petroleum-free colours – even if the colourings they do use are manufactured synthetically.

Read more 
EU to ban 31 meat names for plant-based foods

EU to ban 31 meat names for plant-based foods

19 Mar 2026

The EU looks set to ban 31 animal-associated names for plant-based products – but common terms such as burger, sausage, and nuggets will remain permitted.

Read more