Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Nutrition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Education panel hears bill to ban six artificial food dyes from school-provided meals
Summary
Sen. Dave Merman introduced LB 9 40 to prohibit Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 from school‑provided meals; supporters cited behavioral and public‑health research and other states' laws, while school boards urged attention to vendor contracts and procurement timing.
Get email alerts on the School Nutrition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Dave Merman told the Education Committee LB 9 40 would prohibit a specific group of petroleum‑based artificial food dyes from school‑provided meals, citing research linking such dyes to worsened attention and behavior in some children. He listed the six dyes targeted: "blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5, and yellow 6." Merman and supporters framed the change as a targeted public‑health action limited to meals the state subsidizes.
Members asked about implementation timing. Several witnesses and committee members noted vendor contracts and USDA procurement cycles could make an immediate effective date impractical. Senator Merman acknowledged that an amendment to move the effective date back a year would likely be needed: "So, we will need to amend it to bring that date back 1 year," he said when asked about an August 1 effective date.
Colby Coash of the Nebraska Association of School Boards offered neutral testimony, noting most districts rely on multi‑year contracts with vendors and that state‑only bans interact with federal purchasing and existing warehouse inventories; he urged the committee to consider procurement timing, supply chains and potential short‑term operational impacts. Committee members also discussed federal activity: Department of Health and Human Services said it plans to work with industry to eliminate several synthetic dyes from the food supply, and some members expected federal action could preempt or align with state measures.
Supporters pointed to actions in other states (West Virginia, California, Delaware, Utah) and international measures such as warning labels in the U.K. and E.U. The committee recorded a small number of proponent and opponent statements online and closed the hearing after noting the practical contract and timing issues that will drive any amendment.
