Well, folks, it turns out the debauchery didn’t quite wrap up before the year did.
Last week, in a memorandum opinion issued Tuesday evening, U.S. District Judge Irene Berger (appointed by President Obama) granted a preliminary injunction sought by the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM), effectively blocking West Virginia from enforcing House Bill 2354. Legislation aimed at banning certain food dyes and additives deemed unsafe.
The law was straightforward in intent, if potentially controversial in execution. HB 2354 amended state code governing “adulterated food and drugs,” prohibiting a slate of synthetic additives commonly found in processed foods sold in West Virginia. Among them: Red Dye No. 3, Yellow Dye No. 5, Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 6, Blue Dyes No. 1 and No. 2, Green Dye No. 3, as well as preservatives like butylated hydroxyanisole and propylparaben.
In other words, the same chemical rainbow parents, and consumers alike, have been questioning.
The bill also carved out protections for small sellers; those making under $5,000 per month in food sales—while reserving penalties for those who knowingly sold products containing banned additives without disclosure. Violations could carry misdemeanor charges, fines up to $500, up to one year in prison, and responsibility for testing costs.
The ban was scheduled to take effect January 1, 2028 (with several dyes already being banned in school lunches starting in August of this year).
Until the courts stepped in.
The judge rejected claims that HB 2354 amounted to a bill of attainder, a form of legislation that unfairly targets a specific group. But she ultimately ruled the law unconstitutionally vague, taking issue not with the intent, but with the language.
Specifically, Berger pointed to the bill’s use of the phrase “poisonous and injurious,” noting that it was undefined and preceded by the word “including,” which created a non-exclusive list of banned substances.
That ambiguity, she wrote, allowed the West Virginia Department of Health too much discretion without clear standards, making compliance an “impossible guessing game” for manufacturers.
Berger also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not formally deemed six of the seven listed additives unsafe, and that manufacturers reasonably rely on FDA determinations when formulating products.
If West Virginia wants to ban color additives as “poisonous and injurious,” the court concluded, it must clearly define what qualifies.
And this is where the MAHA conversation really starts.
Because while U.S. regulators continue to debate definitions and defer to decades-old standards, much of the rest of the developed world has already acted.
In the European Union, several of the dyes listed in HB 2354 are either banned outright or subject to strict warning-label requirements under the “Southampton Six” framework. Foods containing dyes like Yellow No. 5 and Red No. 40 must carry labels warning that they “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”
The United Kingdom even went a step further. Rather than fight manufacturers, regulators created incentives to reformulate. Today, many of the same products sold in the U.S. are made with natural colorings overseas; without dyes like Red 40 or Yellow 6—because companies were forced and incentivized to adapt.
Canada has also taken a more precautionary approach, requiring clearer labeling and reviewing synthetic additives more aggressively than U.S. regulators.
Same companies. Same brands. Different rules.
Which raises an uncomfortable question:
If these dyes are “safe enough” for American kids, why aren’t they acceptable for European children (and consumers)?
This isn’t about banning birthday cake or micromanaging family choices. MAHA is about recognizing that our regulatory framework often protects industry convenience (and profit) over long-term public health.
The FDA’s approval of many synthetic dyes is based on studies conducted decades ago, often funded or influenced by industry. Meanwhile, parents, pediatricians, and researchers continue raising concerns about behavioral impacts, hyperactivity, and cumulative exposure—especially in children.
MAHA isn’t demanding perfection. It’s demanding change.
And that’s why this ruling feels less like a defeat and more like a challenge. The court didn’t say West Virginia can’t regulate food dyes. It said the state has to be clearer.
That’s fixable and lawmakers now have a choice: retreat, or refine.
If MAHA is serious about reshaping America’s health trajectory, this moment should be a catalyst, not a cautionary tale. Write better laws. Define clearer standards. Force modernization at the FDA. And stop pretending that “FDA-approved” automatically means “best available option” or “safe.”
Parents are paying attention. Consumers are asking harder questions. States are testing how far they can go before courts, and lobbyists, push back.
MAHA doesn’t end with a court ruling. It begins with what happens after it.