A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Eliminating Dangerous Color Additives Act. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deem certain covered color additives as unsafe for use in or on food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics. This prohibition takes effect two years after the bill is enacted. The covered color additives include those subject to certification under part 74 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations and certified color additive lakes described in part 82.51. Finally, the bill requires a report to be submitted to specific committees in Congress within three years after enactment. This report must describe industry reformulation efforts, regulations implemented or changed, and recommendations for additional congressional action.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Children often consume foods containing artificial color additives and will benefit from their removal from products.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The legislation removes potentially harmful chemical additives from consumer products, thereby improving consumer safety and public health protections.
- Scored +3
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults will benefit from safer ingredients in cosmetics, foods, and drugs.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners face regulatory burdens and costs associated with product reformulation to comply with the new additive bans.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Banning Certain Color Additives: Under Section 2, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will deem covered color additives as unsafe for use in or on food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics. This is positive because it removes these specific additives from everyday products after a two-year period.
-
Congressional Oversight: Under Section 3, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must submit a report to Congress within three years. This report is positive because it holds officials accountable by requiring them to update Congress on industry changes, new regulations, and recommendations for further action.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Burdens on Industry and Supply Chains: Section 2 requires companies to adjust their products because certain color additives will be deemed unsafe within two years. This could be considered burdensome for the industries that have to change how they make their goods.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Children often consume foods containing artificial color additives and will benefit from their removal from products. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households will gain increased health protections from the removal of potentially dangerous additives from consumer goods. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals will experience improved product safety standards across everyday items. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households will experience safer options in everyday food, drug, and cosmetic products. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents will also share in the public health benefits of safer food, drug, and cosmetic supplies. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors will benefit from enhanced safety standards for consumable goods and medical devices. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents will benefit from improved general public health standards and safer commercial products. Would women be better off under this? — Women frequently use cosmetics and personal care products, which are directly impacted by the ban on these color additives. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults will benefit from safer ingredients in cosmetics, foods, and drugs. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners face regulatory burdens and costs associated with product reformulation to comply with the new additive bans.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates a comprehensive report to Congress regarding regulatory implementation and industry reformulation efforts. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal regulatory oversight by empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ban specific color additives.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The legislation removes potentially harmful chemical additives from consumer products, thereby improving consumer safety and public health protections.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill enhances public health and safety by prohibiting certain color additives deemed unsafe in foods, drugs, and cosmetics.
- 10/29/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House