Even though the deadlines to comply with color and additive bans recently passed by California and FDA, food and beverage manufacturers should start reformulating now because selecting, sourcing and preparing facilities to use natural dyes takes longer and includes different logistics than sourcing most artificial colors, warns Sensient Technologies CEO Paul Manning.
As such, he explained, the 2027 deadline set by California to remove brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propyl paraben and Red Dye No. 3 from products sold within its borders and the December 2027 deadline to remove Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dyes No. 5 and No. 6, Blue Dyes No. 1 and No. 2 and Green Dye No. 3 from food served in its schools may seem far away, but it may not be enough time if a company has not yet started the reformulation process.
He added the same is true for meeting the January 2027 deadline set by FDA to remove Red Dye No. 3, which it recently de-authorized following years of public health advocacy.
Manning estimates it will take four to five years for the entire food and beverage market to comply with these bans – which is upwards of two years longer than the deadlines allow – in part because companies must address multiple technical and additional regulatory challenges.
Close is not close enough when matching colors
The first challenge companies converting to natural colors must address is matching the same shade they achieved with a synthetic ingredient, said Manning, who warned an inexact match could turn off consumers.
“Consumers have a very strong connection between color and flavor, and when you modify the color for these users, there is a perception that the flavor is now different. So, oftentimes the No. 1 complaint is your product doesn’t taste the same anymore,” he said. “Well, of course it tastes the same, but that connection between color and flavor is so strong that any deviation from the synthetic standard can be a real, real big problem for a brand.”
With this in mind, he recommends that when companies find the perfect natural shade they move quickly to lock in sufficient supply, and ideally become the first-mover in their category to offer an all-natural version of their product.
Limited supplies restrict color options
“The second biggest challenge with natural colors is really the supply chain,” because they are agriculturally-based, which means they are at the mercy of farmers, weather and other factors that influence crops and yields, Manning said.
It also means it takes time to cultivate, grow and harvest the ingredients necessary to create natural colors at scale once a company chooses a shade, he added.
Likewise, as an agricultural product, natural colors are perishable and have a more finite shelf life, which not only could limit supply but could require companies to invest in additional equipment, such as refrigerated storage.
Flavors and colors in focus: From emerging consumer demand to new manufacturing strategies
This story is part of a special collection of articles examining how consumer preferences for colors and flavors are evolving that was emailed to subscribers.
Check out the full collection.
To receive future special editions via email, register for free for FoodNavigator-USA’s newsletters. Find out more by clicking the yellow “register” button at the top of our homepage or by visiting https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Info/Why-register.
Quality control limitations
As agricultural-based products, natural colors also present quality control challenges because there will be deviations among crops of key ingredients, Manning warned.
“Synthetic food colors are arguably the most regulated food ingredient in the world. Every single time a synthetic food color manufacturer produces a product, that batch goes to the FDA for approval and certification,” which means they are consistent and reliable, Manning said.
“Natural colors have no such comparable standard,” and companies are very dependent on their producers to ensure the safety of each botanical as well as other quality control elements, he said.
Regulatory inconsistencies complicate global distribution
Switching to natural colors is complicated further by different regulations around the world – with some regions approving natural color additives that other governments have not approved.
“Not every raw material that you need has been approved for use by the FDA. There is what is called the color additive petition process,” which can be quite lengthy, and if FDA approves a color – another country might not, Manning said.
Will consumers pay more for natural colors?
Higher costs can be another challenge when reformulating with natural colors, but Manning suggests these can be more than offset by incremental gains in market share by appealing to a broader consumer base that often is willing to pay a premium for all-natural products.
“In a traditional product, synthetic colors represent a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the costs of that product,” but natural colors are more expensive and account for a larger portion of a product’s overall economics, Manning said.
While this may cause some brands to raise their prices to protect their margins when they switch to natural colors, Manning argues many consumers are willing to pay a premium for natural products – especially if there are limited natural choices in the market.
“There are incremental costs versus a synthetic, but I think they found incremental revenue available to them as a result of taking a leadership position,” he said. “You see a lot of new brands that have used all natural colors and all natural ingredients, and they have done exceedingly well in the marketplace.”
Brands must consider natural colors earlier in the development cycle
Given how many additional factors companies must consider when selecting and sourcing natural colors versus synthetic options, Manning advises brands that want natural options to consider them much earlier in the process than they would synthetic choices.
“Every customer has his own or her own unique development process, but typically colors are considered later in product design than other ingredients, for example, flavors,” and that is because with synthetic options the choices are greater, the interaction with other ingredients is less and the supply more stable, Manning said.
“Many of the challenges we are discussing, you would not have with synthetic colors. If you put Red 40 in then you don’t have to worry about whether there is enough Red 40, you don’t have to worry about off-notes impacting the taste. You know how to formulate with it and you are not worried about the regulatory environment for it because it is used just about everywhere in the world,” he explained.
“But now, with natural colors, these are four or five key questions that a developer has to consider and that adds a level of complexity up front in the process,” which needs to be considered earlier, he added.
Synthetic colors are here to stay … for now
While there is increased pressure by some consumers and legislators for companies to switch to natural colors, Manning stressed that synthetic colors are safe, highly regulated and will continue to be used in large markets around the world.
“About two-thirds of the US market still uses synthetic colors. You have got large parts of the world where it is the vast majority of colors that are being used. And the reason is very simple: They are safe. They are among the most regulated food ingredients in the history of the food industry, and they are very reliable,” he said.
Given their safety and performance track record, he said, switching to natural colors may fall lower on the long lists of changes that consumes want that companies can make.
Manning explained that consumers want manufacturers to make many improvements, including using more sustainable packaging, improving worker welfare across the supply chains, reducing sodium and sugar, and more. Companies must balance all of these – and if they have a safe option for synthetic colors, they might opt to address other concerns before switching to natural alternatives.
“There are definitely food safety related matters that we as a country need to address, and then there are a lot of other things too, that perhaps we’d like to address. And so, if we are to affect the maximum benefit to consumers, we have to prioritize those things correctly, because these things can have economic impacts. They can have ESG and supply chain related impacts. They can have food safety-related impacts as well,” Manning said, adding: “There is no free lunch. And I think as a society, it’s very, very important that we rank order, focusing on genuinely food safety related matters, and then moving down the list from there.”
.
