What's actually on the FDA's Select Chemicals List under review (May 2026) — and what HHS Secretary Kennedy has set in motion since January 2025

For the first time in roughly a decade, federal food-additive regulation is moving — sometimes incrementally, sometimes through voluntary industry commitments, and sometimes only at the state level. Most of the motion traces to the change in HHS leadership in February 2025 and the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) policy framework that has organized federal and state activity since.

This is a factual breakdown for shoppers and producers who want to know what has actually changed, what’s been announced versus enforceable, and what’s likely next — separate from the broader political framing the topic generates. Each entry cites specific dates, agency announcements, court decisions, or state laws.

The leadership change and the framework

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on February 13, 2025. HHS oversees the FDA and the CDC, both of which have a role in food-additive regulation. Within weeks of confirmation, Kennedy announced the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) policy agenda and a MAHA Commission, with food and chemical exposure as one of several priority categories.

The federal actions that have followed fall into three buckets:

1. Policy-pathway changes to how the FDA reviews chemicals at all (the GRAS-loophole reform).
2. Voluntary industry commitments negotiated by HHS and the FDA (the synthetic-dye phase-out).
3. Post-market scientific reviews of specific chemicals already in the food supply (the Select Chemicals List).

The list of state-level actions inspired by or coordinated with MAHA is much longer and is producing more immediate consumer-facing change than the federal track, partly because federal rulemaking moves slowly and partly because FY2026 FDA budget cuts have constrained the agency’s enforcement capacity.

The GRAS pathway reform (March 2025)

On March 10, 2025, Kennedy directed the acting FDA Commissioner to explore rulemaking to revise the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) Final Rule, specifically targeting the self-affirmed GRAS pathway. Under the current framework, an ingredient manufacturer can determine on its own that a substance is “generally recognized as safe” and add it to the food supply without notifying the FDA. Kennedy’s announcement characterized this as a “loophole” that allows new ingredients into US food without public review.

The directive instructs the FDA to explore rulemaking. It is not itself a rule, and the agency has not yet published a proposed rule revising the GRAS framework. The Center for Science in the Public Interest and other advocacy groups have lobbied for closing this pathway for decades; this directive is the most concrete federal action on it since the rule was finalized in 2016. Whether it actually becomes a binding regulation depends on what the FDA publishes in the coming year and what survives notice-and-comment rulemaking, including likely industry-group challenges.

The synthetic-dye phase-out announcement (April 2025)

On April 22, 2025, HHS and the FDA jointly announced a phase-out of eight petroleum-based synthetic food dyes from the US food supply by the end of 2026. The structure of the announcement is important:

• Two dyes (Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B) are being revoked by FDA action.
• Six remaining dyes (FD&C Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6) are subject to a voluntary industry phase-out, not a federal mandate. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary stated at the announcement that “there’s no need to have a regulation or a statute when companies are volunteering to do it.”

This is meaningfully different from the FDA’s January 2025 Red Dye No. 3 revocation, which is a binding mandate with compliance deadlines in 2027 (food) and 2028 (drugs). The six-dye phase-out is industry-voluntary, which means there is no legal mechanism to compel compliance if individual manufacturers choose not to reformulate by the end-of-2026 target.

The FDA has also approved several natural color alternatives during 2025 to give manufacturers more options for reformulation. Calcium phosphate, Galdieria extract blue, and butterfly pea flower extract were approved in May 2025 for specific food applications. Gardenia (genipin) blue was approved on July 14, 2025 for use in sports drinks, flavored or enhanced non-carbonated waters, fruit drinks, ready-to-drink teas, and hard and soft candies. Additional natural alternatives remain under expedited review.

The Select Chemicals List update (August 2025)

On August 19, 2025, the FDA published an updated version of its “List of Select Chemicals in the Food Supply Under FDA Review.” This is the most consequential single document for tracking what the agency is actually working on.

As of May 2026, the list of chemicals under active FDA post-market review includes:

• Color additives: FD&C Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, titanium dioxide
• Preservatives and dough conditioners: BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole), BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene), ADA (azodicarbonamide), TBHQ (tert-butylhydroquinone), propyl gallate, sodium nitrate, sodium nitrite, sodium benzoate, propylparaben
• Contaminants and industrial chemicals: perchlorate, phthalates, benzene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, ethylene chloride
• Naturally-occurring substances: opiate alkaloids in poppy seeds

This is not a list of chemicals being banned. It’s a list of chemicals the FDA has formally placed under active scientific review with the intent to decide whether to maintain, restrict, or revoke their current authorization. Each entry carries an FDA “date of review initiation” and a “most recent risk management action” field on the agency’s tracking page.

The post-market chemical review program (February 2026 onward)

The FDA’s post-market review program operationalizes the Select Chemicals List with formal “Request for Information” (RFI) proceedings that gather scientific data for each chemical under review.

• February 11, 2026: The FDA published a Request for Information on BHA (Docket FDA-2026-N-0302), with public comment due April 13, 2026. This is the formal RFI step in the post-market assessment process for BHA. BHA itself was added to the Select Chemicals List in August 2025; the February RFI is the next procedural step.

• May 12, 2026: The FDA announced reassessments of BHT and ADA, with public comment due July 13, 2026. Both are flour and bread additives — for the broader regulatory comparison between US and European flour, see our American flour vs European wheat analysis.

• Titanium dioxide, propylparaben, and phthalates are flagged in FDA communications for expedited review but no formal RFI has been issued at the time of this writing.

The practical timeline for any chemical to move from “under review” to a final regulatory action runs in years, not months, because the post-market scientific assessment, public comment integration, proposed-rule publication, and final-rule promulgation each take significant time. Even with the current administration’s stated commitment to accelerate the process, expect 2027-2028 at the earliest for binding outcomes on any specific chemical currently on the list.

State-level action — moving faster than the federal track

While federal rulemaking proceeds through standard administrative timelines, state legislatures have moved aggressively. According to legislative tracking by the National Environmental Health Association, more than 140 food-additive bills were introduced across 38 states in 2025.

Three state actions are particularly material:

California AB 418 (signed October 2023, effective January 1, 2027). Bans potassium bromate, propylparaben, brominated vegetable oil, and Red Dye No. 3 statewide. The first state-level food-additive ban of federally-cleared substances. Two of the four covered (BVO and Red 3) have since been federally banned, so California’s effective independent reach is on potassium bromate and propylparaben.

West Virginia HB 2354 (signed by Governor Patrick Morrisey on March 24, 2025). Implemented in two phases. Phase 1, effective August 1, 2025, bans seven synthetic food dyes (Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3) in any meal served in a school nutrition program. Phase 2, scheduled to take effect January 1, 2028, expands the ban to all food sold in the state and adds BHA and propylparaben to the prohibited list. This is the most aggressive state-level retail ban announced to date. A federal court has temporarily blocked Phase 2 (the statewide retail portion) following a lawsuit from color manufacturers arguing the statute is unconstitutionally vague; Phase 1 (school meals) remained in effect. The case is ongoing.

Texas SB 25 (signed by Governor Greg Abbott on June 22, 2025; sometimes referred to as the “Make Texas Healthy Again Act”). Requires warning labels on foods containing any of 44 specified additives, applicable to product labels developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027. The required label reads: “WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.” The 44 covered ingredients include several certified color additives (Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, titanium dioxide), preservatives (BHA, propylparaben), DATEM and other emulsifiers, lye, and bleached flour. This is a labeling-disclosure requirement rather than a ban, modeled loosely on California’s Proposition 65 approach. Enforcement is managed by the Texas Department of State Health Services with penalties of up to $50,000 per violation per day. The warning-label requirement itself (Section 9 of SB 25) is currently under federal court injunction. In December 2025 a coalition of food and beverage trade associations — the American Beverage Association, Consumer Brands Association, National Confectioners Association, and FMI (The Food Industry Association) — sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, arguing the warning requirement violates the First Amendment by compelling speech, is preempted by federal FDA authority, is unconstitutionally vague, and violates the dormant Commerce Clause. On February 11, 2026, a federal district court in the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Section 9 against the plaintiffs and their members while the case proceeds. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim. The injunction does not affect the law’s other provisions (Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, school physical activity requirements, etc.).

Other states that enacted food-additive legislation in 2025 include Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia (per MultiState legislative tracking, food-additive bills were enacted across eight states total in 2025, including West Virginia and Texas). Additional bills are pending in legislatures across the political spectrum. The trend is bipartisan — multiple bills have advanced through Republican-controlled legislatures, blue-state legislatures, and split chambers, which is unusual for food regulation.

What this actually means for shoppers right now

A few practical implications, separated from the political framing the topic invites:

One: The federal regulatory floor is moving, but slowly. Two dyes are being federally revoked. Six dyes are being voluntarily reformulated. Twenty-plus chemicals are under formal FDA review. Actual binding bans beyond Red 3, BVO, and (in process) the two revoked dyes are at least 18-24 months away even on the fastest plausible timeline.

Two: State labeling will outpace federal bans in the near term. Within 18 months, Texas warning labels and California AB 418 will create the operational pressure that pushes manufacturers to reformulate nationally — because national producers don’t want to maintain separate state-specific product formulations.

Three: “Voluntary phase-out” is genuinely voluntary. Six of the eight dyes announced in April 2025 have no enforcement mechanism. If the end-of-2026 target slips for any specific dye, the FDA’s current legal options are limited.

Four: Court challenges are now standard. Both of the most aggressive state laws — West Virginia HB 2354’s retail phase and Texas SB 25’s warning-label requirement — are currently under federal court injunction (West Virginia on vagueness grounds, Texas on First Amendment compelled-speech grounds). The trade-association litigation strategy that produced these injunctions will likely be applied to similar laws in other states. Expect state laws to be modified through litigation as much as through legislatures.

Five: Practical action for shoppers hasn’t changed. Read ingredient lists. Choose brands that have already reformulated. Most of the federal-state activity is moving the average toward what careful shoppers were already doing — the question is whether the bottom of the market catches up by mandate or whether it stays in the loophole-shaped gap between federal voluntary commitments and state legislatures.

What’s likely next

Three things worth watching over the next twelve months:

The GRAS rulemaking. If the FDA publishes a proposed rule revising the self-affirmed GRAS pathway, it would be the most consequential federal food-chemical reform since the GRAS Final Rule itself. Industry pushback will be significant. Watch for a Federal Register notice in the second half of 2026.

Titanium dioxide review status. The August 2022 EU ban is now four years old. The Environmental Defense Fund coalition petition (Docket FDA-2023-C-1487) has been at FDA for three years. A formal RFI or proposed action on titanium dioxide would be a significant signal of how aggressively the post-market review program is actually being run.

West Virginia court case outcome. Whether the federal court ultimately strikes down or upholds West Virginia’s retail dye ban will determine the legal viability of similar state laws in 2027. If the court rules against the law on vagueness grounds, expect Texas and other states to redraft. If the court upholds it, expect rapid expansion to additional states.

We will update this article as specific federal rules are proposed or finalized, as state-level laws change, or as material court decisions issue. For a related angle on which specific additives differ between US and EU rules as of right now, see our verified list of additives still legal in the US but banned in the EU.

The honest summary as of May 2026: the federal review machinery is moving for the first time in years; most of what’s been announced is voluntary or in-progress rather than enforceable; state legislatures are doing more immediate work; and the meaningful consumer-side changes will arrive over the next 12-36 months as voluntary commitments mature and state laws survive (or don’t survive) court challenges.