E102 / Colours
Tartrazine
Safety in brief
Safe in moderation
Recorded EatMatrix rating, not a new clinical review. The amount, your sensitivities and country rules still matter.
- Watch for
- Recorded sensitivities: azo dye sensitivity; aspirin/salicylate sensitivity.
- Our advice
- Some selected children reacted to tartrazine in a direct challenge; mixed-colour trials give varied results. That supports taking a consistent individual pattern seriously, without assuming all children react or treating a label as a diagnosis.
What it is
Tartrazine is a synthetic lemon-yellow azo dye (Yellow 5) used in candies, soft drinks, snacks, and processed foods. It is approved in most countries within regulated limits, but it carries an EU-mandated warning label because it may affect activity and attention in children, and it can trigger reactions in people sensitive to azo dyes, particularly those with asthma or aspirin sensitivity.
Also appears on labels as: Tartrazine, E102, E 102, E-102, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow 5, Yellow 5, Yellow No. 5, Food Yellow 4, Acid Yellow 23, C.I. 19140, CI 19140.
Is tartrazine gluten-free, and what does E102 mean?
E102 identifies tartrazine, a yellow food colour. The FDA identifies its batch-certified US form as FD&C Yellow No. 5. Seeing tartrazine or E102 in an ingredient list does not establish whether the whole food is gluten-free: you still need to check the full product label and its gluten-free claim.
FDA gluten-free requirements apply to the food, including its ingredients and any gluten that comes into contact with it. If the product is unclear, check the manufacturer’s information or ask them. A colour name, catalogue entry or app scan cannot certify gluten-free compliance. The colour’s purpose is to change food appearance; that does not establish a health benefit.
The FSA guide lists E102 as tartrazine; the FDA explains US certified-colour names and labelling. These identify the colour, not a particular batch’s certification or permission for every food and country.
- FSA additive names and E numbers (June 25, 2026)
- FDA: food-colour functions, common names and batch certification
- FDA: certified colour names on food ingredient labels
- FDA: gluten-free requirements apply to the food; contact the manufacturer if uncertain
See how EatMatrix reads an ingredient list before trying the app. Compare a scan with the physical label.
Identity and food-use sources checked . The E number alone does not tell you the amount in a product. Wider scientific and market checks are described below.
Dietary information
- Vegan
- Yes
- Halal
- Yes
- Gluten-free
- Yes
- Allergens
- Caution
Recorded ingredient information. Check the product label or certification: sources, other ingredients and cross-contact can vary.
Research & body effects
What behaviour and body-effect studies mean for E102
Children’s activity and attention: what the mixture trial can tell us
The 2007 Southampton crossover trial included 153 three-year-olds and 144 children aged eight or nine. Children received a placebo drink or one of two drinks containing several colours plus sodium benzoate. Thirty children did not complete the study. Behaviour scores increased in some comparisons, but findings depended on age, mixture and which participants were analysed.
This ingredient was in at least one tested mixture. The study cannot tell us which ingredient, or combination, produced a change. A higher behaviour score is not a new diagnosis of ADHD, and the result does not mean that every child responds.
Southampton trial: colour and sodium-benzoate mixtures. Indexed abstract and EFSA’s subsequent assessment read. The timeline uses the journal issue date. An indexed November 2007 erratum and commentary were identified; their complete texts and the full trial methods remain to be reviewed. Exact effect estimates are not reproduced.
An earlier trial found different results at home and in the clinic
A 2004 study selected 277 preschool children after screening for hyperactivity and allergy-related traits. The challenge combined tartrazine, sunset yellow, carmoisine and Ponceau 4R with sodium benzoate. Parents reported more hyperactive behaviour with the mixture than with placebo; the clinic assessments did not detect that difference. It cannot isolate this ingredient’s effect.
Preschool trial: four colours plus sodium benzoate. Indexed abstract read; mixture membership cross-checked in OEHHA’s trial table. June 2004 is the journal issue month. A 2005 rejoinder and erratum is indexed (PMID 16040891); its complete correction text and the trial’s full methods remain pending.
A later trial found no significant adverse behaviour difference
In a 2013 randomized crossover trial, 130 children in Hong Kong, aged about eight or nine, received a four-colour mixture, sodium benzoate separately, and placebo capsules. Neither active capsule significantly worsened the two behaviour scores compared with placebo. The colour mixture contained E102, E110, E122 and E124.
This is useful contrary evidence, including a separate benzoate comparison. A small, short study cannot rule out a smaller effect or a response in a particular child. The abstract does not replace a full appraisal of the analyses, and the colour mixture still does not isolate one colour.
Hong Kong trial: colour mixture and benzoate tested separately. Indexed abstract read; tested colour membership cross-checked in OEHHA’s trial table. November 2013 is the journal issue month. Full methods, statistical comparisons and declarations remain pending.
Tartrazine also has an individual challenge study
A 1994 blinded trial tested different tartrazine doses or placebo in 54 children aged two to fourteen. Most were selected because a reaction was suspected or uncertain; 20 were controls. Parent reports identified irritability, restlessness and sleep changes in some children, with a dose-response pattern.
The selected sample means the fraction reacting cannot be used as the risk for all children. Parent-rated short-term behaviour does not establish lifelong harm, a mechanism in the brain or a personal dose threshold. This study applies to tartrazine, not automatically to other colours.
Tartrazine challenge in a selected group of children. Indexed abstract read; November 1994 is the journal issue month. Complete methods and declarations remain to be reviewed. This is a tartrazine-only challenge, not evidence for every colour.
What EFSA said about the Southampton study
In 2008, EFSA judged the evidence for a small mixture effect to be limited and inconsistent. It could not identify a responsible individual additive or establish the clinical importance of the changes. EFSA did not consider this study sufficient to change the acceptable daily intakes at that time. Use the separate, additive-specific assessments below for their own dates and scope.
EFSA assessment of the Southampton mixture study. Official EFSA summary and publication identity read. This is a historical study assessment, not a fresh 2026 assessment or a statement of current country permissions.
A 2026 study addresses how much people might consume
Researchers estimated food-colour intake in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, using a food-frequency questionnaire and maximum permitted concentrations. Estimated exposure was higher in children and adolescents. This ingredient was among the colours considered.
This was an intake model, not a trial of attention, cancer or other illness. A permitted maximum is not the measured concentration of every food. Its results cannot establish your exposure from a label or update a country’s legal status.
Brazilian food-colour intake estimates by age and income. Indexed abstract and publisher-supplied first-online date read. Full questionnaire methods, uncertainty analyses and declarations remain pending. Not a study of current legal permissions.
California’s broader evidence assessment
California’s OEHHA reviewed seven US-certified synthetic colours in 2021, including this one. It concluded that human evidence supports adverse behavioural effects in some children. This was a review of multiple studies, including older trials, not a new experiment proving an individual effect of every dye. Its scope differs from EFSA’s assessment of the single Southampton study.
OEHHA’s 2021 report. Selected human-evidence conclusions and trial-table entries read; the complete report and all underlying papers have not been appraised here. An assessment is not itself a country-wide legal ban.
What the UK label warning means
UK food-labelling guidance includes this colour among six that require an activity-and-attention warning on relevant food labels. The wording is “May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children”. This is a labelling requirement, not a statement that every child reacts or that all uses are banned.
UK food and drink warnings. Check the country section for the separate question of permitted food uses and their conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading
Some selected children reacted to tartrazine in a direct challenge; mixed-colour trials give varied results. That supports taking a consistent individual pattern seriously, without assuming all children react or treating a label as a diagnosis.
A practical next step for parents
NICE does not recommend removing colours and additives as a universal ADHD treatment. If a particular food repeatedly seems linked to behaviour, discuss the pattern with the child’s clinician. A food-and-symptom diary can help; targeted dietary changes should involve a dietitian and the child’s care team. Keep the overall diet varied and nutritionally adequate.
Selected sources checked . Reading scope and known correction gaps are stated beside each source. Recent laboratory and exposure studies are labelled separately from human intervention trials. This is not an exhaustive clinical review, a personal diet prescription or a complete current-country assessment. These selected findings do not change recorded ratings or permissions.
Selected research on E102
How to read study types- Dietary exposure estimateBrazilian food-colour intake estimates by age and income
A food-frequency questionnaire and maximum permitted concentrations were used to estimate intake in southern Brazil. Estimates were higher in younger groups. Food concentrations were not individually measured, and behaviour or disease outcomes were not tested.
- Randomized trialHong Kong trial: colour mixture and benzoate tested separately
In 130 children aged about 8 to 9, a colour-mixture capsule and a separate sodium-benzoate capsule did not significantly worsen two behaviour scores versus placebo. This small, short trial does not establish no effect in every child or at every exposure.
- Regulator reviewEFSA re-evaluation of tartrazine
Kept the safe daily limit of 7.5 mg per kg of body weight; intake is below it. It can cause intolerance reactions in a small number of sensitive people, even within the limit.
- Regulator reviewEFSA assessment of the Southampton mixture study
EFSA found limited evidence of a small, inconsistent mixture effect and could not attribute it to individual additives. That study alone did not justify changing acceptable daily intakes. This historical opinion does not replace current additive-specific assessments.
- Randomized trialSouthampton trial: colour and sodium-benzoate mixtures
The crossover trial included 297 children in two age groups. Some colour-plus-benzoate mixtures increased behaviour scores, with results varying by age, mixture and analysis. It cannot identify one responsible additive or establish new ADHD diagnoses.
- Randomized trialPreschool trial: four colours plus sodium benzoate
The challenge combined four colours with sodium benzoate. Parents reported more hyperactive behaviour than with placebo; clinic assessments did not detect that difference. This is a mixture result, not an isolated effect of this ingredient.
- Randomized trialTartrazine challenge in a selected group of children
A small blinded challenge found parent-rated irritability, restlessness and sleep changes in some children. Most participants were selected for suspected sensitivity. The proportion reacting is not the prevalence among all children and does not define a personal safe dose.
Earlier source summaries checked ; latest additions checked . See the detailed research section for what was read and the remaining limits. This is a selection of sources, not a complete literature review. Authority assessments apply to the uses and places they cover.
Health notes from our ingredient record
- EU/UK warning: may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.
- Hypersensitivity reactions possible in susceptible individuals, especially those with asthma or aspirin intolerance.
Other references from our ingredient record
These links come from the original ingredient record. They are separate from the source reviews above and have not all been checked for the exact ingredient, amount consumed or claim. Dates are shown newest first.
- Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation Tartrazine (E 102) — EFSA Panel on Food Additives, EFSA Journal (2009). Official EFSA scientific opinion (bibliographic reference, imported 2026-10-13). It covers the additive as a group assessment and is not an individual human study; read the opinion for its findings.
Country rules
Country checks for E102
Permission depends on the market, type of food, amount and conditions. A scientific opinion or an E-number alone does not establish a legal use. These checks are separate from the stored EatMatrix rating.
Compare all eight markets and their sources
| Market | What is checked |
|---|---|
| European Union | Regulation (EC) 1333/2008, Annex II Part B, version , contains the exact code E102: Tartrazine. Listing alone does not allow every food use. Part E food categories, limits, specifications and applicable later acts still need a product-specific check. Source read: . |
| Great Britain | The FSA register record for E102 (Tartrazine) lists “Authorised” in England, Scotland and Wales. Register updated: 01 April 2025; record checked: . Food-specific conditions and specifications still need a separate legal check. |
| United States | Complete current-use review pending. Any scoped provision in the label guide above applies only to the stated use. FDA explains the applicable food-additive and GRAS framework. |
| Northern Ireland | Review pending. Check the applicable EU rules and territory arrangements; the GB register alone does not establish this status. FSA guidance is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
| Canada | Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict. Only the named records and conditions below were located. Exact composition and specifications still need matching. Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake. Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking. Read 9 listed food-use conditionsTartrazine Footnote *Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Colours. List published ; item T.1.
Official list footnote: * This food colour is a synthetic colour as defined in section B.16.001 of the Food and Drug Regulations . For the purposes of section B.16.012 of the Food and Drug Regulations , the synthetic colours identified in the list above are water soluble with the exception of citrus red No. 2. Return to footnote * referrer EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban. |
| Australia | Review pending. Food Standards Code permissions and conditions need an additive-specific check. FSANZ food-additive rules is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
| New Zealand | Review pending. Food Standards Code permissions and conditions need an additive-specific check. FSANZ food-additive rules is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
| Japan | Review pending. The relevant list, identity and use standards need an additive-specific check. CAA food-additive lists is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
Sources & review status
Check what each source covers: an authority’s conclusion, a research finding and a country’s legal permission answer different questions.
What this guide covers
- Selected research
- 7 source summaries, with publication dates and study types. Several publications may describe the same study population.
- Official assessment sources
- Commission-listed EFSA references for E102. Bibliographic identity checked; latest findings and current use rules need separate review.
- Original ingredient record
- 1 research link; newest recorded date: . Sources added separately to this guide are not included in this count.
This guide brings together our ingredient record and the dated sources shown here. Missing information describes a gap in this guide; it does not mean an ingredient is untested, safe or harmful. This is not a complete review of every study, preparation or current country rule. The amount in a product and how it is used still matter.
How to read the ratings, research and country checksAgency labels recorded by EatMatrix
These are imported database classifications, not verified current statements from each authority. Use the dated official sources below for their actual scope and conclusions.
| Authority | Database label |
|---|---|
| FDA | Safe in moderation |
| WHO | Safe in moderation |
| EFSA | Safe in moderation |
| FSANZ | Safe in moderation |
| Japan | Safe in moderation |
| UK FSA | Safe in moderation |
| Health Canada | Safe in moderation |
Official assessment sources for E102
The European Commission’s re-evaluation table lists official EFSA documents for this additive. Their identifiers and subjects were checked against publisher bibliographic records. A missing research link in the EatMatrix database does not mean the additive has never been assessed.
Name in the Commission table: Tartrazine.
- Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation Tartrazine (E 102)
EFSA scientific opinion. Published: .
These are assessment references, including historical or group assessments. They do not establish the latest scientific conclusion, a human health benefit or risk, or current permission to use the additive in a particular food. Later assessments, corrections and food-use conditions need separate review. The recorded EatMatrix rating above is unchanged.
European Commission re-evaluation table, status as of . EatMatrix checked this bibliography on .
Database updated: . What does an E number mean on a food label?
Common questions
Frequently asked questions
What is EatMatrix's recorded rating for E102?
The recorded EatMatrix rating for E102 (Tartrazine) is “Safe in moderation”. It is calculated from labels stored in our ingredient database. These labels are not verified current regulator decisions or country permissions. A database update date is not a scientific review date.
Is E102 vegan, halal or gluten-free?
According to our ingredient data for Tartrazine — vegan: yes, vegetarian: yes, halal: yes, kosher: yes, gluten-free: yes, dairy-free: yes. Manufacturing sources can vary between products; check the label if it matters to you.
What is E102 and why is it used?
Tartrazine is a synthetic lemon-yellow azo dye (Yellow 5) used in candies, soft drinks, snacks, and processed foods. It is approved in most countries within regulated limits, but it carries an EU-mandated warning label because it may affect activity and attention in children, and it can trigger reactions in people sensitive to azo dyes, particularly those with asthma or aspirin sensitivity.
Does E102 contain allergens?
No known allergens are recorded for Tartrazine, with a caution: azo dye sensitivity aspirin/salicylate sensitivity.
Does tartrazine or E102 mean a food is gluten-free?
No ingredient name or E number alone establishes that the whole food is gluten-free. E102 identifies tartrazine, a colour additive. Check the complete product label and gluten-free claim; FDA requirements apply to the food. If uncertain, ask the manufacturer. EatMatrix ingredient lookup or scanning does not certify gluten-free compliance.
Is Yellow 5 the same colour as tartrazine?
The FDA identifies the batch-certified form of tartrazine as FD&C Yellow No. 5, often shortened on US food labels to Yellow 5. The FSA lists tartrazine as E102. These name matches help identify the colour, but an E number alone does not prove that a batch has FDA certification.
Read the whole label.
Scan a food label with EatMatrix on iPhone to look up its ingredients in the app.
Ingredient research, by email
Join the list for food additive research updates. Unsubscribe any time.
This page shows information and classifications recorded in our ingredient database. Current scientific and market-specific verification remains pending as described above. It is general information, not medical advice.