Are There Lawsuits Targeting Artificial Food Dyes in UPF Products?

Yes, there are lawsuits targeting artificial food dyes in UPF products. These lawsuits claim that major food companies knowingly use synthetic dyes and harmful ingredients despite well-documented health risks. Some cases also compare food companies’ actions to tobacco industry tactics, accusing them of concealing dangers from consumers. As a result, legal pressure is increasing on the food industry to warn consumers and change marketing practices.

At Uptown Injury Law, PLLC, we hold food companies accountable when they market ultra-processed foods with artificial dyes as safe while ignoring known health risks. Our lawyers review and analyze product labels and build strong claims that show how major food manufacturers failed to warn consumers. Once you submit the online contact form with your name, email, phone, and case details, the legal team reviews your information and responds within 24 hours.

Is There Any Active Lawsuit Targeting Artificial Food Dyes in UPF Products?

Yes, you can find active lawsuits in federal court against ultra-processed food manufacturers over synthetic food dyes that cause serious health issues. These cases claim that large food manufacturers such as Kraft Heinz Company, Mars, and Kellogg’s continue to market addictive and harmful foods without proper warning labels. Many consumers experience adverse health effects, including non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, mental health disorders, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic illnesses.

Here are some of the most recent lawsuits and investigations involving artificial food dyes in UPF:

Texas Attorney General’s Investigation Into Mars, Inc.

Texas is actively investigating Mars, the company behind M&M’s and Skittles, over its use of synthetic dyes in ultra-processed foods. The investigation centers on the company’s 2016 pledge to remove these dyes from U.S. products, but regulators say the company never fulfilled its promise. In fact, Mars continues to market its candies as family-friendly despite the presence of artificial dye.

Texas Settlement With Kellogg’s Over Cereal Dyes

Texas also took action against Kellogg’s for using synthetic dyes in cereals such as Froot Loops and Apple Jacks. Regulators argued the company promoted these ultra-processed products as healthy, while they still contained artificial dyes. The case concluded with a binding agreement requiring Kellogg’s to remove dyes from its cereals sold in the state.

Skittles Titanium Dioxide Lawsuit

Mars faced a federal lawsuit in California over the use of titanium dioxide in Skittles. Consumers claimed the hyper-palatable Skittles were “unfit for human consumption” because a whitening additive causes DNA damage. Mars denied the allegations, but the case quickly gained national attention. Since then, Skittles have been reformulated without the additives.

Kraft Heinz “No Artificial” Labeling Case

Kraft Heinz has also faced class action claims over the labeling of its Mac & Cheese products. Their consumers argued the packaging falsely advertised “no artificial preservatives, flavors, or dyes” while the ingredient lists included synthetic additives. In 2024, a federal judge allowed the case to proceed, and in 2025, the company responded by announcing it would phase out all synthetic dyes from its U.S. products by 2027.

What Health Problems Are Linked To Artificial Food Dyes?

Artificial food dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 5 have been linked to hyperactivity in some children, especially when tied to ultra-processed food consumption. However, the effects are inconsistent. Some children show clear behavioral changes, while others show no reaction. Because these outcomes are unpredictable, health agencies continue to review safe intake levels linked to eating ultra-processed foods. These ongoing assessments raise concerns about possible long-term health risks and highlight the need for careful monitoring.

Here are some other health risks linked to artificial food dyes:

• Neurological changes: Some dyes may disrupt neurotransmitters (brain chemicals that regulate attention and self-control)
• Immune reactions: Sensitive individuals have reported rashes, hives, and respiratory issues after consuming certain dyes.
• Metabolic stress: Research suggests dyes, hydrogenated fats, and unhealthy fats can contribute to oxidative stress, which harms cells and affects overall health.

How Do Federal Agencies Like The FDA Regulate Food Dyes In UPFs?

The FDA and other agencies, like the Health and Human Services, require all food dyes in ultra-processed foods to undergo premarket approval. This means that food manufacturers must submit safety data, and the agency must certify each dye before it enters the food supply. Currently, only seven synthetic dyes have this certification. These are known as FD&C colors and include widely used additives such as Red 40 and Yellow 5.

In addition, the FDA does not qualify food dyes as “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS), like many other ingredients that do not need approval once safety is established. Instead, regulators test and certify every food dye batch before it reaches consumers. This process ensures purity, defines usage limits, and allows regulators to monitor negative health outcomes caused by excessive UPF consumption. Although the framework provides oversight, the FDA continues to review food dyes as new studies raise questions about their long-term safety.

Why Are U.S. Food Companies Phasing Out Artificial Colors?

U.S. food companies are removing artificial colors because states are restricting dyes in school meals, which creates compliance challenges for national suppliers. At the same time, parents and advocacy groups are demanding cleaner ingredient lists, because lawsuits raise concerns about possible links between dyes and behavioral or serious health conditions.

Another factor affecting this change is global competition. Many of the same brands sell products in Europe without artificial dyes because of their different labeling rules. U.S. consumers now question these differences, and their concerns lead companies to use natural alternatives that reduce risk and build consumer trust.

In addition, the FDA’s decision to ban Red 3 in drugs and cosmetics made the food industry recognize that similar restrictions on dyes could be introduced for food. As a result, many manufacturers began reformulating products to comply with evolving regulations and to meet consumer expectations. Taking these steps in advance allows companies to reduce legal risks, protect brand reputation, and maintain nationwide distribution without sudden, costly reformulations imposed by state or federal action.

How Do State-Level Food Dye Restrictions Affect UPF Litigation?

State-level restrictions are creating overlapping rules that exceed federal standards. For example, California’s Food Safety Act (AB 418) will prohibit Red 3 in packaged foods starting in 2027, while New York is applying similar rules for school meals. These laws create a system of regulations that ultra-processed food companies must follow. As a result, meeting federal standards alone is no longer sufficient, and failure to comply with state laws exposes businesses to lawsuits and enforcement actions.

Here are additional ways these laws are affecting UPF litigation:

• Labeling disputes: Packaging differences across states create opportunities for false advertising claims when labels don’t meet local rules.
• Fuel for class actions: Plaintiffs argue companies misled consumers by selling foods with banned dyes.
• Evidence in court: Personal injury lawyers rely on state bans to show companies ignored known risks, strengthening negligence claims.

Beyond basic compliance, these laws also complicate defense strategies. Companies must comply with both federal and state standards. These overlapping requirements increase costs and weaken claims that companies can legally market industrially manufactured products as safe.

Can the MAHA Report on Food Dyes Affect UPF Lawsuits?

Yes, the MAHA Report (Make America Healthy Again) on Food Dyes can strengthen UPF lawsuits by giving plaintiffs additional scientific support and increasing regulatory attention. While the report is not legally binding, its findings highlight how dyes and additives create health risks. This allows plaintiffs to argue more effectively that food companies ignored known dangers, failed to warn consumers, and contributed to harmful effects linked to ultra-processed foods.

The MAHA Report also encourages food companies to make voluntary changes by reviewing their use of dyes and improving product labels. Even in the absence of binding regulations, many manufacturers take steps to reduce additives to limit lawsuits, avoid negative publicity, and prepare for future oversight.

Does the GRAS Standard Allow Unsafe Color Additives Into UPFs?

No, the GRAS standard does not apply to color additives in harmful ultra-processed foods (UPFs). The GRAS, or “Generally Recognized as Safe,” allows certain ingredients to remain on the market once safety is established. However, color additives are handled differently. They fall under a separate legal framework in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Because of this distinction, synthetic dyes, as substances extracted or created in labs, cannot be approved under GRAS. Instead, every color additive must go through a formal premarket approval process with the FDA. In this process, manufacturers submit scientific data, and the agency certifies each batch before it reaches the market. This requirement highlights the extra risks linked to dyes and shows why regulators treat them more tightly than other food ingredients.

What Legal Theories Are Plaintiffs Using in UPF Artificial Dye Claims?

Plaintiffs often bring misrepresentation claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and False Advertising Law (FAL). They also pursue breach of warranty and wrongful benefit claims, arguing that companies profited from unsafe products. In negligence-based lawsuits, plaintiffs allege failure to warn consumers or even conspiracy to hide dye-related risks.

In addition, plaintiffs often rely on several specific legal arguments, including:

• Failure to disclose material facts: Claims that companies omitted known risks of synthetic dyes.
• Violation of state food safety laws: Plaintiffs cite state-specific bans as evidence of unlawful practices.
• Deceptive labeling practices: Lawsuits argue that packaging implied “safe” or “natural” despite synthetic colors.
• Unfair competition theories: Lawsuits claim that companies using dyes gained an unfair market advantage over competitors offering dye-free alternatives.

How Do European Union Policies on Food Dyes Influence U.S. Litigation?

European Union policies show how the same dyes are regulated differently abroad. The EU requires warning labels on more ultra-processed foods containing the “Southampton Six” dyes, including Sunset Yellow, Tartrazine, and Allura Red (Red 40). These labels inform consumers that the colors may affect children’s attention and behavior. In U.S. lawsuits, plaintiffs often highlight this contrast to show that if Europe mandates warnings, companies know the risks yet fail to warn American consumers.

Can the Skittles Lawsuit Set a Precedent in Future Artificial Dye Litigation?

Yes, the Skittles lawsuit can affect future artificial dye litigation by showing how U.S. courts assess claims about unsafe additives. In this case, plaintiffs focused on titanium dioxide, an ingredient the European Union banned but the U.S. still allows. They argued the candy misled consumers by being marketed as safe even though other countries restrict the same ingredient.

However, the court required detailed proof of exposure and harm before allowing the claims to proceed. This outcome shows that proving toxicity in additive cases remains difficult, even when international bans exist.

We Fight for Victims Harmed by Artificial Food Dyes — Get a Free Case Review From Uptown Injury Law, PLLC Today!

Artificial food dyes in ultra-processed foods have been linked to childhood hyperactivity, obesity, and chronic disease. Despite these risks, food companies continue to market these products as safe, leaving families with rising medical bills and serious long-term health concerns. At the same time, courts demand strong medical evidence to connect an illness to food dyes, which makes these cases difficult to pursue without skilled legal support.

At Uptown Injury Law, PLLC, we pursue mass tort cases built on strong evidence, from analyzing internal company documents to coordinating expert medical testimony. We ensure that your medical records, product labels, and other evidence are presented clearly so your claim meets strict court standards. Recognized with the Attorney-Client Satisfaction “10 Best” Award (2021), we are committed to helping clients secure justice and full compensation. Call 917-540-8728 today for a free consultation or visit us at The Bruckner Building, 2417 Third Ave., Suite 505, Bronx.

FAQs