MONTGOMERY — This week, the House Health Committee held a public hearing on legislation by State Rep. Reed Ingram (R-Pike Road) that would prohibit public K-12 schools from selling, permitting the sale of, or serving any food item that contains certain additives.

House Bill 491 (HB491) would ban several common food dyes from being served or served in public schools, including Red Dyes No. 3 and 30, Yellow Dyes No. 3 and 6, Blue Dyes No. 1 and 2, and Green Dye No. 3.

The bill was amended to change the effective date to the 2026-2027 school year.

Prior to the public hearing, Ingram expressed concerns about the perceived dangers of food additives, citing federal action aimed at targeting specific food additives and stating that the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) is behind the bill.

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it would ban Red Dye No. 3 for use in the American food supply. In keeping with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative, RFK has also announced plans to phase out eight synthetic food dyes in the American food supply.

“We all know that a lot of kids can’t afford to buy lunch or bring their lunch because they don’t have food at home,” Ingram said. “So when they get to the school, their parents do want them to eat healthy. And if it’s got red dye, that’s a petroleum-based product that causes behavioral problems and neurological problems; that’s proven. That’s problematic to me.”

He continued, “This is not reinventing the wheel. This is being done, and like I say, it’s filed in more than 20 states, and it’s an agenda at the federal level with Kennedy.”

Only one person spoke at the hearing: Virginia Bannister, Executive Director of the Alabama Beverage Association. Reading a long list of products she represents that contain the proposed additives, Bannister vigorously opposed the bill, arguing that it was legislative overreach.

“I represent the Buffalo Rock Company, Coca Cola United, and all the other Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Keurig bottlers here in the state of Alabama,” Bannister said. “As most of you know, we are in every corner of the state and in between, and we’ve been around for more than 100 years.”

She continued, “HB491 would place the state of Alabama in an unprecedented position of regulating food and beverage ingredients; that’s a role currently held by the [FDA]. The safety of our products is our highest priority. Americans should have complete confidence in their favorite beverages. A state-by-state patchwork of ingredient restrictions or bans will only create confusion for our customers and retailers. The integrity of our products is strong. All common beverage ingredients, colors, and sweeteners have been subject to rigorous scientific review and have been approved for consumption by multiple regulatory agencies and authoritative bodies worldwide.”

Far from swayed by Bannister’s comments, Ingram reiterated that similar bans have been enacted in other Western nations, claiming the U.S. was behind the curve.

“Europe has banned it years ago,” Ingram responded. “All we’re asking is in the lunches; what’s in the schools. They banned it in the 90s in makeup. Women can’t even have it in their lipstick anymore. There’s a lot of proof that this causes problems.”

Some lawmakers questioned the logistics of enforcing the bill, wondering if there would even be vending machines on campus for students and staff to use. Ingram responded, “I guess not.”

State Rep. Neil Rafferty (D-Birmingham) inquired whether schools would be prohibited from observing holidays such as Valentine’s Day and Halloween.

“If they brought it in, that would be something permittable by the parents,” Ingram responded. “But I don’t think we ought to keep giving our kids poison.”

State Rep. Arnold Mooney (R-Indian Hills) seemed to favor the bill. However, he did question an ALSDE representative about why a ban required legislation instead of being approved through the state education board.

“I would ask you respectfully to present this to the appropriate people at the [ALSDE],” Mooney said. “I don’t know what will happen here today, but this is obviously a concern that needs to be looked at and dealt with. It just seems like we spend time in areas that we are not experts in, and I would hope that it could be done in a manner that’s more productive to the final result.”

The committee did not vote on the legislation after the meeting on Wednesday. With so few legislative days remaining, the final passage of HB491 would be challenging.

To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected].

Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.