美国食品药品监督管理局表示,如果使用天然染料,公司可以声称“不含人工色素”。
FDA says companies can claim "no artificial colors" if they use natural dyes

原始链接: https://www.foodpolitics.com/2026/02/fda-says-food-companies-can-claim-no-artificial-colors-if-they-use-natural-dyes/

美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)正在更新其关于“不含人工色素”声明的立场,现在允许产品如果不含石油基色素,即使*含有*天然色素,也可以贴上此类标签。这为公司在标签上提供了更大的灵活性。 与此同时,FDA最近批准了甜菜红和扩大了螺旋藻提取物的使用范围,使当前政府批准的新型食品色素总数达到六种。该机构还在跟踪行业去除石油基染料的承诺。 然而,转向天然色素并不一定更健康。虽然天然色素与儿童的行为问题无关,但它们会经过工业加工,并且仍然可能含有来自农药或加工溶剂的污染物。为了达到与合成色素相同的鲜艳度,它们还需要使用更大的量,并表明存在超加工的程度。归根结底,食品色素——天然或人工——都具有化妆目的,增强外观而非营养价值。

## FDA 澄清“无人工色素”标签 – 并引发争议 FDA 允许公司将产品标注为“无人工色素”,即使它们使用来自甜菜或姜黄等天然来源的染料。 此前,该标签意味着无论来源如何,均未添加任何色素。 这一变化源于对天然来源的染料是否本质上更安全,尽管它们通常会经历与合成替代品相似的加工 – 以及潜在的污染 – 的争论。 Hacker News 上的评论员大多对“天然”标签表示怀疑,指出“天然”并不等同于“健康”。 人们对用于天然染料的提取过程表示担忧,这些过程可能涉及汽油等溶剂,以及在所有食物都经过一定程度加工的情况下定义“天然”的模糊性。 许多人认为,重点应该放在*是否*添加了色素,而不是*色素来自哪里*,并建议使用更清晰的标签,如“无额外着色”,会更透明。 一些人担心这一变化会削弱消费者寻求极少加工食品的有用信号,而另一些人则认为这是对先前令人困惑的法规的语义修正。
相关文章

原文

HHS issued a press release last week: FDA takes New Approach to “No Artificial Colors” Claims

Companies will now have flexibility to claim products contain ‘no artificial colors’ when the products do not contain petroleum-based colors. In the past, companies were generally only able to make such claims when their products had no added color whatsoever — whether derived from natural sources or otherwise. The agency sent a letter to industry providing notice of the FDA’s intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to these voluntary labeling claims.

..Additionally, the agency today also approved beetroot red, a new color option, and approved the expanded use of spirulina extract, an existing color additive derived from a natural source…This brings the total number of new food color options approved under the current administration to six.

…Ongoing progress in removing petroleum-based colors from the food supply is being publicly tracked by the FDA at Tracking Food Industry Pledges to Remove Petroleum Based Food Dyes.

Natural colors are generally extracted from vegetables, spices, or insects.  They go through industrial processing to extract the pigments and stabilize them.  (A series of videos explains the processes)

Are natural colors healthier?  They might be.  They are not associated with behavioral problems in children.

Are they safer?  Possibly, but they are not as well studied or regulated.  According to Time,

…their natural sources of color do not necessarily mean that they are safer or free of potentially harmful compounds. Natural sources may be treated with pesticides and herbicides, and are also prone to contamination with bacteria and other pathogens…To strip natural products of these contaminants, manufacturers process them with various solvents—some of which could remain in the final coloring and contribute to negative health effects…[and] it generally takes more natural color than synthetic color to make the same shade in a final food.

One additional point: color additives—regardless of source—are an indicator of ultra-processing.

Candy and cereals made with colors extracted from natural sources will still be ultra-processed.

The purpose of food colors—no matter their source—is entirely cosmetic.  They make foods look more appealing and appear to taste better. That’s why the food industry loves added colors.

Removing the more vibrant and more stable petroleum-based colors may reduce sales.

Will doing so Make America Healthy Again?  We shall see.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com