In a significant development, a District Judge in the Southern District of West Virginia ruled on December 23, 2025, to temporarily prohibit the state from enforcing its synthetic food dye ban while the law is being challenged in court. This ruling comes amidst ongoing litigation against HB 2354, a bill enacted earlier in 2025 that addresses the use of synthetic color dyes in food. The International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) has challenged the constitutionality of this law, leading to a complex legal battle with far-reaching implications for the food industry and public health.
HB 2354, codified at W. Va. Code § 16-7-2, 4; 18-5D-3A, has two main components. The first part of the law bans the use of specific synthetic color dyes statewide, set to take effect on January 1, 2028. This provision classifies foods containing these dyes as “adulterated” and prohibits their sale, with potential criminal misdemeanor charges for violators. The law lists several dyes, including FD&C Blue No.1, FD&C Red No. 40, and FD&C Yellow No. 5, among others. Notably, the law includes an exception for businesses selling less than $5,000 worth of food monthly.
The second part of HB 2354, effective since August 1, 2025, prohibits the inclusion of foods containing these synthetic dyes in school nutrition programs. This provision aims to protect students from potentially harmful ingredients, although it allows the sale of such foods during school fundraisers held off school premises or after school hours.
The debate over synthetic color additives is not new. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these substances separately from other food ingredients. Synthetic color dyes must undergo a rigorous approval process to be deemed safe for consumption. Currently, the FDA has approved nine synthetic color dyes for use in food, although it is in the process of revoking approval for three of them. West Virginia’s law specifically targets seven of these FDA-approved dyes, along with two other ingredients, butylated hydroxyanisole and propylparaben, which are regulated under different FDA pathways.
The IACM, representing the interests of the color additives industry since 1972, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of HB 2354. The association argues that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause, constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and is unconstitutionally vague. The Equal Protection Clause claim asserts that the law unfairly targets color additives without a rational basis for finding them unsafe. The bill of attainder claim argues that the law singles out specific additives for prohibition and criminal sanction without proper judicial proceedings. Lastly, the vagueness claim contends that the law’s language is unclear, violating the Due Process Clause.
In response to IACM’s request for a preliminary injunction, the court evaluated the likelihood of the association succeeding on the merits of its claims. The court found that IACM was unlikely to succeed on its equal protection claim, as there was a debatable question regarding the safety of the named color additives presented to the West Virginia legislature. The court also dismissed the bill of attainder claim, determining that the law applies broadly to anyone adulterating food and includes judicial protections.
However, the court found that IACM might succeed on its vagueness claim. The ruling highlights the ongoing legal and regulatory scrutiny surrounding synthetic food dyes and their impact on public health. The temporary injunction allows the court to maintain the status quo while the broader constitutional challenges are resolved. This decision underscores the complex interplay between state regulations, federal oversight, and industry interests in the realm of food safety.
As the litigation continues, the implications of this ruling will be closely watched by the food industry, public health advocates, and legal experts. The outcome could set a precedent for how states regulate food additives and the extent to which federal regulations preempt state laws. For now, the temporary injunction provides a reprieve for manufacturers and sellers of foods containing synthetic dyes, allowing them to continue operations while the legal battle unfolds.