2025 in Food Safety: The Year Everything Changed

For decades, food safety advocates in the United States fought the same uphill battle: the FDA moved slowly, industry pushed back, and consumers were left navigating a system built more around commerce than caution. Then 2025 happened.

More changed in a single year than in the previous two decades combined. Here is the timeline of a year that rewrote the rules.

January 2025: The Red Dye 3 Ban Takes Effect

On January 15, 2025, the FDA’s ban on FD&C Red No. 3 (Erythrosine) officially took effect for food products, with a later deadline for ingested drugs. This was not a new finding — the FDA had banned Red Dye 3 in cosmetics back in 1990 after studies showed it caused cancer in laboratory animals. It took 35 more years to extend that ban to food.

The ban was triggered not by new FDA research but by a citizen petition and mounting state-level pressure. California had already moved to ban it through the California Food Safety Act in 2023. The FDA’s hand was forced by the growing patchwork of state regulations that threatened to make federal inaction untenable.

What it means for consumers: Check your pantry. Maraschino cherries, candy hearts, fruit snacks, and certain cake decorations were common sources. Manufacturers were given until January 2027 to reformulate, so products containing Red Dye 3 may still be on shelves during the transition period.

February-March 2025: The GRAS Review Order

In early 2025, then-HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a directive ordering the FDA to begin a systematic review of substances classified as GRAS — Generally Recognized as Safe. This classification, established in 1958, has been the backbone of food additive regulation in the US. It was also, critics argued, its biggest loophole.

The GRAS system allows manufacturers to self-certify ingredients as safe without FDA review. An estimated 10,000+ substances are currently on the market under GRAS designations, many of which have never been independently evaluated by the FDA. The review order directed the agency to prioritize substances that:

Were GRAS-certified before 1980 with no subsequent review
Have accumulated adverse-event reports
Are banned or restricted in two or more major regulatory jurisdictions

What it means for consumers: This is a slow-moving process. The review will take years. But the signal matters — the US is acknowledging for the first time that its foundational system for additive safety has structural problems.

Mid-2025: State-Level Bans Accelerate

California led, and others followed.

California Food Safety Act (signed 2023, effective 2027): Bans four substances in food products sold in California:

Red Dye 3 (Erythrosine)
Titanium dioxide (E171)
Potassium bromate
Brominated vegetable oil (BVO)

Illinois introduced HB 2331, targeting the same four substances plus six artificial food dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3).

New York proposed the NY Food Safety Act, which would ban potassium bromate, titanium dioxide, azodicarbonamide, and BHA in addition to Red Dye 3.

The state-level approach mirrors what happened with trans fats: cities and states banned them years before the FDA acted federally. When enough states move, federal action becomes inevitable — not out of scientific conviction, but out of regulatory practicality. Food companies cannot maintain 50 different formulations.

EFSA Re-Evaluates Acesulfame K

Across the Atlantic, the European Food Safety Authority continued its multi-year re-evaluation of all food additives authorized before 2009. In 2025, EFSA published its updated assessment of acesulfame potassium (E950), one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners.

The key change: EFSA set a new Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 15 mg/kg body weight per day, revising the previous value downward. While the sweetener was not banned, the lowered ADI signals increased caution. For a 70 kg adult, this means no more than 1,050 mg per day — a threshold that heavy consumers of diet beverages and sugar-free products could approach.

What it means for consumers: If you drink multiple diet sodas daily, the safety margin is narrower than previously assumed. Moderation matters even with “zero calorie” sweeteners.

EFSA Additive Re-Evaluation Program: 70%+ Complete

By the end of 2025, EFSA had completed re-evaluations of more than 70% of the approximately 330 food additives authorized in the EU before 2009. This program, launched in 2009, represents the most ambitious systematic review of food additive safety ever undertaken by any regulatory body.

Key outcomes from the re-evaluation program include:

Titanium dioxide (E171): Safety could not be confirmed, leading to the 2022 ban (enforcement ongoing)
Multiple food dyes: ADIs revised for several synthetic colorants
105 ingredients in our database now include EFSA safety assessment data, with 76 carrying specific ADI values and 105 with genotoxicity assessments

The program has become a global reference point. When other countries evaluate additive safety, EFSA’s re-evaluation data is frequently cited as the most current and comprehensive source.

Titanium Dioxide Enforcement Continues

The EU banned titanium dioxide in food in 2022, but enforcement and transition have continued through 2025. Products manufactured before the ban could be sold until their shelf life expired. By mid-2025, the market had largely transitioned, and enforcement actions against non-compliant products increased.

This had global ripple effects. Multinational food companies reformulated their European products to remove titanium dioxide, and in some cases, applied those reformulations globally — not because other countries required it, but because maintaining separate supply chains was more expensive than reformulating.

Meanwhile, the US FDA continues to allow titanium dioxide, and the Codex Alimentarius (the international food standards body) has not reached consensus on a global position.

The Bigger Picture: A Global Risk Map

The events of 2025 highlight a fundamental reality: food safety is not a settled science with universal answers. It is a patchwork of national decisions shaped by different studies, different risk tolerances, and different political pressures.

Our database tracks 582 ingredients across 6 regulatory jurisdictions. Of those, 32 are classified as high risk and 101 as moderate risk. The regulatory gaps between countries remain substantial.

What’s Next in 2026?

Several developments are on the horizon:

California Food Safety Act enforcement begins in 2027, but the compliance scramble starts this year. Expect major reformulations from brands selling in California.
FDA GRAS review results for the first tranche of priority substances are expected in late 2026 or early 2027.
EFSA’s additive re-evaluation will push toward completion, with the remaining ~30% of pre-2009 additives under review.
Illinois and New York food safety bills will move through legislative processes. If either passes, the momentum becomes very difficult for the federal government to ignore.
International harmonization discussions at Codex Alimentarius will continue, though consensus remains elusive.

The direction is clear, even if the pace is frustratingly slow: the world is converging toward stricter additive regulation. Countries that were outliers are facing domestic pressure to align with more cautious international standards.

What This Means for You

2025 proved that advocacy works, that state action can force federal movement, and that the scientific consensus on food additive safety is not static. But it also proved that change takes years, and during those years, consumers bear the risk.

The most effective tool available to consumers right now is information. Know what is in your food. Know how your country regulates it. Know how other countries view the same ingredient.

Download GradeMyLabel to scan your own products. We track 582 ingredients across 6 countries with real-time regulatory data, so you always know where an ingredient stands — not just in your country, but globally.