HB5882, the No Tricks on Treats Act of 2025, would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to treat foods that contain synthetic dyes, added flavors, or nonnutritive sweeteners as misbranded unless the packaging clearly states these facts. The bill focuses on foods other than dietary supplements and defines the mechanisms for labeling by tying disclosure to the principal display panel of the packaging.
It also specifies that a synthetic dye must be batch-certified under Part 74 of title 21, CFR (or any successor regulations).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds new misbranding provisions to the FD&C Act: foods with synthetic dyes, added artificial or natural flavors, or nonnutritive sweeteners must prominently disclose these facts on the principal display panel.
Who It Affects
Food manufacturers, packagers, and importers that use dyes, flavors, or nonnutritive sweeteners in foods; labeling and packaging teams; and FDA enforcement staff.
Why It Matters
It creates a uniform disclosure standard that improves transparency for consumers and health-conscious buyers, while clarifying what counts as a required label claim under federal law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The No Tricks on Treats Act of 2025 adds a federal labeling requirement for foods that contain certain additives. In essence, if a product uses a synthetic dye, any added artificial or natural flavoring, or a nonnutritive sweetener, the fact must be prominently disclosed on the product’s principal display panel.
The bill defines a synthetic dye as a batch-certified dye subject to certification under Part 74 CFR, or any successor regulation, and it excludes dietary supplements from this requirement. The labeling obligation covers foods in general and is enforced as a misbranding issue under the FD&C Act.
The mechanism is straightforward: the presence of these additives must be clearly stated where shoppers are most likely to see it, so consumers can make informed choices without having to search the packaging or the ingredient list. The act tightens transparency around color additives, flavors, and sweeteners, but it does not provide new exemptions or allowances beyond the explicit language about what must be disclosed on the principal display panel.
Enforcement would follow existing misbranding provisions under federal law, with the new standard applying to products across the food supply chain.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds misbranding for foods containing synthetic dyes, added flavors, or nonnutritive sweeteners that must be disclosed on the principal display panel.
It defines synthetic dye as batch-certified and subject to Part 74 CFR certification (or successor regulations).
Disclosures apply to foods other than dietary supplements.
The requirement covers both artificial and natural flavors included in foods.
Enforcement would proceed under existing FD&C misbranding authorities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This act may be cited as the No Tricks on Treats Act of 2025, establishing the labeling standard addressed in Section 2 and setting the scope for application to food products (excluding dietary supplements).
Inclusion of dyes, flavors, and sweeteners as misbranding
Section 403 of the FD&C Act is amended to add new subsections governing labeling. For foods other than dietary supplements, if the food bears or contains a synthetic dye or any added artificial or natural flavoring, the fact must be prominently stated on the principal display panel of the packaging. A similar requirement applies to nonnutritive sweeteners. The bill defines synthetic dye as a batch-certified dye subject to Part 74 CFR certification or its successor regulations. These provisions create a clear, enforceable standard for when color additives, flavorings, and sweeteners must be disclosed to avoid misbranding.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers and caregivers who rely on clear ingredient disclosures to make dietary choices, especially those sensitive to dyes or flavors.
- Public health advocates who support greater transparency in food labeling and consumer education.
- FDA and other federal agencies responsible for enforcing labeling rules, which would gain clearer authority and expectations for compliance.
- Retailers and manufacturers that already maintain transparent labeling, who would benefit from a uniform standard and reduced ambiguity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small and mid-size food manufacturers that will need to adjust packaging to ensure disclosures are prominent on the principal display panel.
- Importers and distributors that must verify labeling for foods sourced internationally or from different suppliers.
- Packaging design firms and suppliers that may need to support new labeling formats and display requirements.
- Retailers that may incur costs to update shelf-ready materials and logistics to ensure visibility of disclosures.
- Some products could face reformulation costs if brands pursue labeling strategies to minimize perceived additives.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing consumer transparency with feasible implementation: the rule’s reach rests on a subjective standard of “prominently stated” on the principal display panel, while definitions of dyes and flavors are tied to regulatory certifications that may evolve and affect a wide range of products and packaging designs.
The bill’s labeling standard raises questions about the interpretation of “prominently stated” on the principal display panel, which can vary by packaging size and design. It relies on a legal definition of “synthetic dye” as batch-certified under Part 74 CFR, but leaves open the possibility that future regulatory changes could adjust what is considered certified, or how disclosure must be presented on nonstandard packaging.
The act does not specify penalties or the enforcement timeline beyond existing misbranding authorities, so practical implementation will depend on FDA guidance and industry readiness. It also leaves room for future refinements, such as how to handle products with multiple labels, variations across dietary lines, or exemptions for certain natural colorants used in limited amounts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.