West Virginia Food Dye Ban Temporarily Halted by Federal Court
A federal court has temporarily blocked the enforcement of West Virginia’s House Bill 2354 (HB 2354), bringing temporary relief to food manufacturers grappling with the prospect of reformulating products to eliminate certain synthetic dyes. The bill, passed earlier this year, aimed to ban several synthetic food dyes, along with butylated hydroxyanisole and propylparaben, from school meals beginning in the 2025-26 school year, with a broader ban on all food and drink distributed in the state taking effect in 2028.
Why did this happen? The International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia’s HB 2354, which sought to ban certain food dyes. The court granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement due to concerns about the bill’s vagueness.
The legal challenge was brought by the international Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM), which argued the legislation was unconstitutional. filed on October 6, 2025, the lawsuit centered on three key arguments, seeking both declarative and injunctive relief.
First, the IACM contended that HB 2354 unfairly targeted color additives, treating them differently than other food ingredients.according to the complaint, requiring manufacturers to replace banned colors with naturally derived alternatives would create an “unduly burdensome” financial strain, violating the equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Secondly, the IACM asserted that the bill “singles out” color additive manufacturers and sellers for punitive action.The institution argued that a positive test result for a banned dye would automatically be considered a violation, denying manufacturers the possibility to present evidence of a color additive’s safety.
the IACM challenged the bill’s use of the term “poisonous and injurious to health,” arguing it lacked a clear legal definition within West Virginia law and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The IACM stated this vagueness “disincentivizes the use of many ingredients that are and have been deemed safe by the FDA,” creating uncertainty for those affected.
Who was involved? The key players are West Virginia state lawmakers who passed HB 2354, the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) who filed the lawsuit, and the federal court that issued the injunction. State officials defended the bill.
The state countered that HB 2354 applies to anyone who adulterates food and provides for a trial for alleged violators. State officials also maintained that protecting the health and safety of west Virginia residents, particularly children, provided a rational basis for the bill’s requirements.
The court acknowledged the state’s goal of protecting public health and safety, and found that the prohibitions within HB 2354 served that purpose. However, the court sided with the IACM on the issue of vagueness. The court determined that HB 2354 “fails to provide sufficient notice and invites arbitrary enforcement,” particularly given that the prohibited color additives are currently approved by the FDA. This creates confusion regarding which substances are considered harmful.
What was the bill about? House Bill 2354 aimed to ban several synthetic food dyes, butylated hydroxyanisole, and propylparaben from school meals and eventually all food and drink sold in West Virginia. The IACM argued the bill was unconstitutional.
Furthermore,the court highlighted Section 16-7-2(b)(7) of HB 2354,which allows the West Virginia Department of Health to pursue enforcement against manufacturers for additional color additives not specifically listed in the bill,if deemed “poisonous and injurious.” For this reason, the court ruled that West Virginia “must provide clear guidance for determining what substances are ‘poisonous and injurious'” and granted the IACM’s request for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the bill.
