February 20, 2026
In 2025, FDA’s reorganized Human Foods Program (HFP) signaled renewed attention to how colors are made, how they’re authorized, and how they’re described on labels. For beverage brands selling THC- or CBD-containing drinks through state-regulated channels (and for hemp-derived products sold more broadly), this matters for two reasons:
1) Many modern beverage formulations rely on botanically derived colorants (spirulina, beet, annatto, paprika, fruit/vegetable juices) to create consistent visual cues.
2) Marketing teams often pair those color systems with “all-natural” or “no artificial colors” claims—exactly the kind of statements that can create misbranding and deceptive-marketing exposure when they don’t line up with FDA’s rules and enforcement posture.
FDA’s 2025 guidance agenda explicitly included work on “food colors derived from natural sources”—a cue that the agency views this as an active policy area, not a settled background issue. Even where a color is derived from a plant, it can still be a color additive with specific legal authorization and labeling requirements.
This post explains what’s changing, what stays the same, and how to reduce label and claims risk for multi-state beverage rollouts—especially when your label also has to accommodate state cannabinoid disclosures and California Proposition 65 warnings.
Informational only—this is not legal advice.
FDA published its proposed 2025 HFP guidance agenda and highlighted that guidance agendas are intended to help stakeholders plan for potential changes that could impact their businesses.
Key source links:
Within that agenda, the inclusion of food colors derived from natural sources should be read as a compliance “heat map” item for any beverage brand that:
Even if FDA guidance does not create new law, guidance frequently shapes enforcement priorities and can influence how state regulators and private plaintiffs argue that certain labeling practices are misleading.
A common mistake is treating “natural colors” as if they were just ordinary ingredients. Under FDA’s framework, if the primary purpose of an ingredient is to impart color, it is generally a color additive—even if it comes from a natural source.
FDA’s color additive program is built on premarket authorization: color additives must be listed in FDA regulations before they can be used in food.
Start here:
FDA divides permitted colors into broad buckets:
Relevant regulatory link:
For beverage brands, the compliance takeaway is simple: “Natural-source” does not mean “unregulated.” It typically means the colorant is in Part 73 rather than Part 74—and that your label, formulation, and use levels must still fit the listing.
When FDA (or a state food regulator applying similar principles) looks at a beverage label, one of the first checkpoints is whether the ingredient statement truthfully and properly declares the color additives.
FDA’s general food labeling rules are in 21 CFR Part 101, and color declaration concepts appear in 21 CFR 101.22.
Practical compliance points for beverage teams:
Beverages often use “vegetable juice (for color)” or similar phrasing. This can be appropriate in some contexts, but it’s not automatically compliant. The key question is whether the ingredient is functioning as a conventional food ingredient or as a color additive and whether the relevant rules permit the manner of declaration.
Operationally, you should maintain a color substantiation file that includes:
FDA has a longstanding policy approach to the word “natural” in human food labeling, but has not adopted a comprehensive regulatory definition through rulemaking.
FDA reference:
For cannabinoid beverage brands, the compliance challenge is that “natural” claims can be attacked from multiple angles:
While your focus keyword is “FDA 2025 guidance natural colors hemp beverage labeling,” it’s important to note a closely related policy change that arrived immediately after 2025 and will influence how marketing teams interpret risk.
On February 5, 2026, FDA issued a letter to industry announcing it intends to exercise enforcement discretion for certain “no artificial colors” claims when products do not contain FD&C Act certified colors (i.e., colors listed in Part 74), even if they contain certification-exempt colors (Part 73).
A helpful summary source:
Compliance takeaway: this policy shift can reduce one category of FDA enforcement risk, but it can also increase state-law and class-action risk if consumers interpret “no artificial colors” to mean “no added color.” Your claim substantiation and consumer-facing context still matter.
Even if your ingredient statement is technically correct, brands can create risk when:
For beverages, the “visual identity” of a product is part of the marketing claim. If a label says “made with real fruit” and the visual cue is mainly driven by added color, you invite scrutiny—particularly when the product is also making functional claims around relaxation, sleep, pain, focus, or mood.
Many beverage brands straddle two worlds:
A recurring label error is inconsistency in how the product is positioned:
The legal requirements differ:
Primary regulatory reference for supplement facts:
Practical compliance risks for your beverage line:
FDA’s broader cannabinoid enforcement posture (including for ingestible products) continues to show that FDA will cite products for being adulterated/misbranded and for making impermissible drug claims.
FDA resource page collecting warning letters:
Example warning letter involving ingestible products and adulteration allegations:
Even if a product is sold primarily in state-licensed channels, many brands still aim for:
That means your label architecture must be designed to withstand:
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has tailored warning regulations for exposures to delta-9-THC from products intended to be ingested.
OEHHA rulemaking page and resources:
Separately, Prop 65 short-form warnings were amended effective January 1, 2025, with a transition period for certain implementations (commonly discussed as extending to 2028 for products manufactured on/after that date for safe harbor).
Background on the amended short-form framework:
A beverage can label might need to fit:
When space is tight, brands take shortcuts that create risk:
The compliance solution is to treat label layout as a regulatory hierarchy exercise, not just a brand design task.
Based on the HFP agenda signal and the broader industry direction, beverage teams should expect regulators and plaintiffs to scrutinize:
Your formula team should be able to point to:
Example of a Part 73 listing frequently relevant to beverages:
It is not enough to be “close.” In enforcement and litigation, small wording differences can be framed as deceptive.
If you use “no artificial colors,” build an internal rule:
“Strawberry” is not just a flavor statement; it may imply a visual and ingredient expectation.
Below is a practical, multi-disciplinary approach that compliance leaders can run as a 30–60 day sprint.
For each SKU, document:
Audit:
Flag phrases that can create implied claims, including:
Then reconcile those claims with your actual color additive use and with how “artificial” is being interpreted in the marketplace.
Once you pick a regulatory posture, enforce consistency:
If you sell in multiple states, make sure state-required potency disclosures don’t conflict with the panel format.
If the product will be sold into California:
Before printing, create a mockup for the worst-case market (often California + a state with extensive symbol/warning rules). Ensure:
For THC/CBD beverages, the highest-frequency triggers tend to be:
If you’re updating colors, reformulating for shelf stability, or expanding distribution, treat your label as a regulated artifact—review it the same way you review test results and SOPs.
Use https://www.cannabisregulations.ai/ to pressure-test your cannabis compliance program for beverage labeling, claims substantiation, and multi-state rollout planning—so your next packaging order supports growth instead of creating enforcement or litigation risk.
