
RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?
Prepare to say goodbye to the brilliant pink (from red dye No 40) that signifies strawberry, the cool green (yellow 5 and blue 1) of mint chocolate chip, and the heroic combination of red 40, blue 1, and yellow 5 and 6 that makes up Superman.
One of the goals of the Maha movement is to prevent childhood diseases, which Kennedy argues can be accomplished by, among other things, addressing the use of additives in ultra-processed foods. A recent study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics calculated that, in 2020, 19% of food products contained artificial dyes – 'the most egregious' additive, according to Kennedy. Those dyes, he claims, are responsible for a host of health issues, including cancer, hyperactivity and possibly autism.
'The American people have made it clear – they want real food, not chemicals,' Kennedy said in a statement.
Aside from jokes on social media about Donald Trump's skin tone and Kennedy's alleged use of methylene blue (an artificial dye that some claim boosts 'mitochondrial efficiency' and longevity), the initiative has faced little political opposition. In January, when Joe Biden was still president, the FDA announced a ban on red dye No 3 scheduled to go into effect in 2027. Red 3, the FDA explained, was shown to cause cancer in rats, and while it does not show up in food in large enough quantities to affect humans, it still violates a law forbidding additives that contain carcinogens.
Meanwhile, states as politically varied as West Virginia, Texas and California have already established their own bans or requirements that foods containing artificial dyes carry warning labels, citing the need to protect kids. (In the UK and the EU, restrictions on artificial dyes have been in place for years.)
Why the fuss over food coloring? Are natural dyes really that much better for our health?
'They're better for some people's health,' says Jamie Alan, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University. 'There is a very small percentage of children who are very sensitive to these dyes. And when they eat these dyes, they display behaviors that we sometimes associate with ADHD.'
Alan stresses that there is no evidence that those kids actually develop ADHD. But research has found that after eating foods containing certain dyes, children, including those diagnosed with ADHD or autism, can show signs of hyperactivity, moodiness and inattentiveness. However many of these foods, particularly candy and soda, also contain sugar, which has also been connected to hyperactive behavior.
Alan recommends that parents talk to a pediatrician and try an elimination diet to make sure the dye and not another ingredient is to blame. But she largely supports phasing out artificial dyes; most public health advocates think this is a good idea. 'In my opinion,' Alan says, 'because we're talking about children and because they are a vulnerable population, I do think this is a great thing to do. But I will recognize that it is not going to impact the vast majority of the population.'
One group that the change in dyes will certainly affect is the food manufacturers themselves. Switching from artificial to natural dyes is a complex process, says Travis Zissu, the co-founder and innovation lead of Scale Food Labs in Golden, Colorado, which offers a program to help manufacturers with the dye conversion.
Unlike artificial dyes, which are derived from petroleum, natural dyes come mostly from plants: turmeric, for example, is used for yellows; algae and butterfly pea flower for blues; lycopene from carrots and tomatoes for reds. These dyes can be less stable, so Scale's program begins with finding natural pigments that will not be affected by heat and other chemicals, followed by tests to determine which combination of dyes will produce the most reliable color. Next, Scale helps companies lock in contracts that will not force them to raise their prices too much and secure light-sensitive packaging to protect the colors. Finally, there are nine to 12 months of product testing to make sure production runs smoothly and that there are no adverse effects for consumers, such as red-dyed feces (something that has been known to happen with beet powder and extract; Alan says it's harmless, but admits it can be unnerving).
But Zissu's biggest concern is that there won't be enough to go around. Natural color demand is already up between 30-50% across the industry since food companies began announcing their intentions to stop using artificial color, he says, and the earliest deadline – 2027 – is still years away.
'There is simply not enough supply to replace every single item in the market,' he says. 'You'll see the largest companies locking down colors soon, but there will not be enough until 2030.'
There is also the worry that American consumers will reject the new colors altogether. While their counterparts in Europe, Canada and Japan have peacefully accepted the duller hues of natural dyes, Americans remain stubbornly attached to neon-bright candy and cereal.
Case in point: in 2015, General Mills pledged to remove all artificial colors and flavorings from its products. The following year, it rolled out a natural version of Trix, the kid-friendly fruity breakfast cereal. But the muted Trix, colored by radishes, purple carrots and turmeric, was a flop. Customers missed the vibrant colors and complained that the new version didn't taste right. By 2017, 'classic Trix' had returned to grocery stores.
On the other hand, when Kraft reformulated the powder for its macaroni and cheese and quietly began selling the all-natural version in December 2015, there was much less protest. As an Eater headline at the time put it: 'Kraft Changed Its Mac and Cheese and Nobody Noticed.' Perhaps it was the marketing strategy – Kraft did not bother to make a big announcement until after it had sold 50m boxes – or maybe it was because the natural dyes were just as orange as the original. (Alan recalls that her young nieces and nephews were slightly worried about the change but accepted the new mac and cheese without much fuss.)
As the adage goes, we eat with our eyes. The appearance of food should not change our perceptions of how it tastes, but, as anyone who has ever bought produce knows, it definitely does. In nature, brighter colors indicate that foods are ripe and will taste good. This principle also applies to human-made food.
As far back as the Middle Ages, according to Ai Hisano, a professor of business history at the University of Tokyo and author of Visualizing Taste: How Business Changed the Look of What You Eat, dairy farmers would mix carrot juice and annatto from achiote trees into their butter to make it a more appetizing yellow. When scientists discovered petroleum-based dyes in the mid-19th century, the dairy industry was one of the earliest adopters: the artificial dyes were cheaper, and they helped create uniform yellows for butter and cheese that appealed to shoppers.
Other food producers quickly followed suit. Meat would be red! Sandwich bread would be white! Oranges – which sometimes stayed green, even when they were ripe – would be orange! By the early 20th century, the US government had started regulating food coloring to make sure it didn't kill anyone.
This was also the beginning of the golden age of industrial food such as candy, breakfast cereal and, most notoriously, Jell-O, which came in colors never seen in nature. Food dye became vital for branding, Hisano writes. Even if brighter color didn't really affect flavor because the food was entirely manufactured, people perceived that it did, and that was what mattered. Would a beige Flamin' Hot Cheeto taste as spicy?
'I assume many consumers in the early 20th century were frightened by those bright-red foods,' Hisano told the Atlantic in 2017. 'But one reason consumers liked them is because they were excited about these colors they had never seen before.' And the knowledge that they were regulated by the FDA made them feel they were safe to eat.
Because the identity of their products depends on color, the most resistance to Kennedy's initiative has come from America's candy manufacturers. A spokesman for the National Confectioners Association said that candy makers will not adopt natural dyes until federal regulations compel them to. Of all the biggest US food companies, only Mars, maker of M&Ms, Skittles and Starburst (incidentally, Trump's favorite candy), has not yet pledged to give up artificial dye, except for the already banned red 3. However, FDA commissioner Marty Makary told Fox News that he thinks Mars will come around sooner than later.
Zissu, the food dye consultant, foresees 'an R&D sprint' to develop natural dyes before the 2027 deadline. And indeed, since May, the FDA has approved four new natural colors – three blues and one white – for a wide range of food, including juices, milk-based meal replacements, cereal, chips, sugar and ready-to-eat chicken products.
But Zissu does not think that a transition to natural dyes means that the color of food will revert to a pre-industrial dullness. 'I believe we will always see the bright colors in candy and other items that consumers come to expect,' he says. 'There will just be a lot more research dedicated to getting those colors if artificial [dye] is banned.'
It may also help if America's food manufacturers act en masse, as they appear to be doing: the change will be so overwhelming that, as Zissu puts it, 'neon synthetics will look as dated as trans fats.' Perhaps in a few years, we will look back at green mint chip ice-cream in wonder. (Some people already do: many ice-cream producers, including Ben & Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs, don't use green as the signifier for mint.)
It seems Maha is poised to help shake America of its affair with artificial colors. But it celebrates this victory at the same time as the Trump administration guts public health infrastructure.
The ice-cream industry's pledge came just 11 days after Congress passed a spending bill that will cut Medicaid spending, and therefore healthcare for millions of children, and slash Snap food assistance for US families. It came the same day that the Department of Health laid off thousands of employees. Under Trump, the government has also cut research grants to scientists studying, among other things, disease prevention and vaccines (of which Kennedy is a notorious skeptic). Underlying issues such as food and housing insecurity and child poverty that devastate children's wellbeing are likely to worsen.
Alan thinks that if Kennedy is serious about improving the health of America's kids, there are much more pressing issues than food dye to work on. 'I just can't believe that someone would be given a chance to make such an impact,' she says, 'and this is what they choose to do.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?
The Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement celebrated this month after the US dairy industry voluntarily pledged to remove all artificial dyes from ice-cream by 2028. In April, US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr prevailed upon the food industry to stop using artificial dyes, and many of the nation's largest food manufacturers, including Nestle, Kraft Heinz and PepsiCo, have already promised to comply. But the ice-cream pledge made Kennedy especially happy because, he said, ice-cream is his favorite food. Prepare to say goodbye to the brilliant pink (from red dye No 40) that signifies strawberry, the cool green (yellow 5 and blue 1) of mint chocolate chip, and the heroic combination of red 40, blue 1, and yellow 5 and 6 that makes up Superman. One of the goals of the Maha movement is to prevent childhood diseases, which Kennedy argues can be accomplished by, among other things, addressing the use of additives in ultra-processed foods. A recent study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics calculated that, in 2020, 19% of food products contained artificial dyes – 'the most egregious' additive, according to Kennedy. Those dyes, he claims, are responsible for a host of health issues, including cancer, hyperactivity and possibly autism. 'The American people have made it clear – they want real food, not chemicals,' Kennedy said in a statement. Aside from jokes on social media about Donald Trump's skin tone and Kennedy's alleged use of methylene blue (an artificial dye that some claim boosts 'mitochondrial efficiency' and longevity), the initiative has faced little political opposition. In January, when Joe Biden was still president, the FDA announced a ban on red dye No 3 scheduled to go into effect in 2027. Red 3, the FDA explained, was shown to cause cancer in rats, and while it does not show up in food in large enough quantities to affect humans, it still violates a law forbidding additives that contain carcinogens. Meanwhile, states as politically varied as West Virginia, Texas and California have already established their own bans or requirements that foods containing artificial dyes carry warning labels, citing the need to protect kids. (In the UK and the EU, restrictions on artificial dyes have been in place for years.) Why the fuss over food coloring? Are natural dyes really that much better for our health? 'They're better for some people's health,' says Jamie Alan, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University. 'There is a very small percentage of children who are very sensitive to these dyes. And when they eat these dyes, they display behaviors that we sometimes associate with ADHD.' Alan stresses that there is no evidence that those kids actually develop ADHD. But research has found that after eating foods containing certain dyes, children, including those diagnosed with ADHD or autism, can show signs of hyperactivity, moodiness and inattentiveness. However many of these foods, particularly candy and soda, also contain sugar, which has also been connected to hyperactive behavior. Alan recommends that parents talk to a pediatrician and try an elimination diet to make sure the dye and not another ingredient is to blame. But she largely supports phasing out artificial dyes; most public health advocates think this is a good idea. 'In my opinion,' Alan says, 'because we're talking about children and because they are a vulnerable population, I do think this is a great thing to do. But I will recognize that it is not going to impact the vast majority of the population.' One group that the change in dyes will certainly affect is the food manufacturers themselves. Switching from artificial to natural dyes is a complex process, says Travis Zissu, the co-founder and innovation lead of Scale Food Labs in Golden, Colorado, which offers a program to help manufacturers with the dye conversion. Unlike artificial dyes, which are derived from petroleum, natural dyes come mostly from plants: turmeric, for example, is used for yellows; algae and butterfly pea flower for blues; lycopene from carrots and tomatoes for reds. These dyes can be less stable, so Scale's program begins with finding natural pigments that will not be affected by heat and other chemicals, followed by tests to determine which combination of dyes will produce the most reliable color. Next, Scale helps companies lock in contracts that will not force them to raise their prices too much and secure light-sensitive packaging to protect the colors. Finally, there are nine to 12 months of product testing to make sure production runs smoothly and that there are no adverse effects for consumers, such as red-dyed feces (something that has been known to happen with beet powder and extract; Alan says it's harmless, but admits it can be unnerving). But Zissu's biggest concern is that there won't be enough to go around. Natural color demand is already up between 30-50% across the industry since food companies began announcing their intentions to stop using artificial color, he says, and the earliest deadline – 2027 – is still years away. 'There is simply not enough supply to replace every single item in the market,' he says. 'You'll see the largest companies locking down colors soon, but there will not be enough until 2030.' There is also the worry that American consumers will reject the new colors altogether. While their counterparts in Europe, Canada and Japan have peacefully accepted the duller hues of natural dyes, Americans remain stubbornly attached to neon-bright candy and cereal. Case in point: in 2015, General Mills pledged to remove all artificial colors and flavorings from its products. The following year, it rolled out a natural version of Trix, the kid-friendly fruity breakfast cereal. But the muted Trix, colored by radishes, purple carrots and turmeric, was a flop. Customers missed the vibrant colors and complained that the new version didn't taste right. By 2017, 'classic Trix' had returned to grocery stores. On the other hand, when Kraft reformulated the powder for its macaroni and cheese and quietly began selling the all-natural version in December 2015, there was much less protest. As an Eater headline at the time put it: 'Kraft Changed Its Mac and Cheese and Nobody Noticed.' Perhaps it was the marketing strategy – Kraft did not bother to make a big announcement until after it had sold 50m boxes – or maybe it was because the natural dyes were just as orange as the original. (Alan recalls that her young nieces and nephews were slightly worried about the change but accepted the new mac and cheese without much fuss.) As the adage goes, we eat with our eyes. The appearance of food should not change our perceptions of how it tastes, but, as anyone who has ever bought produce knows, it definitely does. In nature, brighter colors indicate that foods are ripe and will taste good. This principle also applies to human-made food. As far back as the middle ages, according to Ai Hisano, a professor of business history at the University of Tokyo and author of Visualizing Taste: How Business Changed the Look of What You Eat, dairy farmers would mix carrot juice and annatto from achiote trees into their butter to make it a more appetizing yellow. When scientists discovered petroleum-based dyes in the mid-19th century, the dairy industry was one of the earliest adopters: the artificial dyes were cheaper, and they helped create uniform yellows for butter and cheese that appealed to shoppers. Other food producers quickly followed suit. Meat would be red! Sandwich bread would be white! Oranges – which sometimes stayed green, even when they were ripe – would be orange! By the early 20th century, the US government had started regulating food coloring to make sure it didn't kill anyone. This was also the beginning of the golden age of industrial food such as candy, breakfast cereal and, most notoriously, Jell-O, which came in colors never seen in nature. Food dye became vital for branding, Hisano writes. Even if brighter color didn't really affect flavor because the food was entirely manufactured, people perceived that it did, and that was what mattered. Would a beige Flamin' Hot Cheeto taste as spicy? 'I assume many consumers in the early 20th century were frightened by those bright-red foods,' Hisano told the Atlantic in 2017. 'But one reason consumers liked them is because they were excited about these colors they had never seen before.' And the knowledge that they were regulated by the FDA made them feel they were safe to eat. Because the identity of their products depends on color, the most resistance to Kennedy's initiative has come from America's candy manufacturers. A spokesman for the National Confectioners Association said that candy makers will not adopt natural dyes until federal regulations compel them to. Of all the biggest US food companies, only Mars, maker of M&Ms, Skittles and Starburst (incidentally, Trump's favorite candy), has not yet pledged to give up artificial dye, except for the already banned red 3. However, FDA commissioner Marty Makary told Fox News that he thinks Mars will come around sooner than later. Zissu, the food dye consultant, foresees 'an R&D sprint' to develop natural dyes before the 2027 deadline. And indeed, since May, the FDA has approved four new natural colors – three blues and one white – for a wide range of food, including juices, milk-based meal replacements, cereal, chips, sugar and ready-to-eat chicken products. But Zissu does not think that a transition to natural dyes means that the color of food will revert to a pre-industrial dullness. 'I believe we will always see the bright colors in candy and other items that consumers come to expect,' he says. 'There will just be a lot more research dedicated to getting those colors if artificial [dye] is banned.' It may also help if America's food manufacturers act en masse, as they appear to be doing: the change will be so overwhelming that, as Zissu puts it, 'neon synthetics will look as dated as trans fats.' Perhaps in a few years, we will look back at green mint chip ice-cream in wonder. (Some people already do: many ice-cream producers, including Ben & Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs, don't use green as the signifier for mint.) It seems Maha is poised to help shake America of its affair with artificial colors. But it celebrates this victory at the same time as the Trump administration guts public health infrastructure. The ice-cream industry's pledge came just 11 days after Congress passed a spending bill that will cut Medicaid spending, and therefore healthcare for millions of children, and slash Snap food assistance for US families. It came the same day that the Department of Health laid off thousands of employees. Under Trump, the government has also cut research grants to scientists studying, among other things, disease prevention and vaccines (of which Kennedy is a notorious skeptic). Underlying issues such as food and housing insecurity and child poverty that devastate children's wellbeing are likely to worsen. Alan thinks that if Kennedy is serious about improving the health of America's kids, there are much more pressing issues than food dye to work on. 'I just can't believe that someone would be given a chance to make such an impact,' she says, 'and this is what they choose to do.'


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Is a keffiyeh really an appropriate outfit for a Cambridge University ceremony?
Cambridge University's decision to honour the rap artist Stormzy with an honorary doctorate seemed odd. New universities, rather than our ancient ones, like to parade icons of popular culture. When the decision was announced a few months ago, I was asked by a national newspaper to write a piece questioning his nomination. I demurred, because Stormzy was being rewarded for generous benefactions that aimed to bring disadvantaged black schoolchildren to Cambridge University – despite my doubts about reserving scholarships for particular ethnic groups. Stormzy's honorary doctorate dominated the headlines – and so, none of us really noticed who else was on the list. Looking back, it is almost as if a smokescreen was being created to let through someone far more controversial than the two-times winner of the Best Grime Act. An official photo of the awardees, enrobed in doctoral scarlet, has just been released. Vice-Chancellor Deborah 'call me Debbie' Prentice is seated next to Stormzy. Behind her, adorned with a keffiyeh, stands the American radical Angela Davis. One can pass over Ms, or should one say Dr, Davis's predictable loyalties in the Middle East, while still asking whether it is appropriate for her or anyone else to wear a political badge in an official photo of this sort, and, more importantly, whether Cambridge acted responsibly in releasing it across the globe. More to the point is the simple question why Angela Davis is thought to be a suitable recipient of such an honour in the first place. It cannot be because she is descended from the Cambridge graduate William Brewster, who centuries ago sailed to North America on the Mayflower. If there is an answer, it may lie in the encomium written by the University Orator. It is a toe-curling document, particularly in the translation from Latin, which is all most people will be able to read. Understandably it lays stress on the appalling treatment of black people that she witnessed as a child in America; but it then turns to the occasions when she has suffered persecution because of her staunch adherence to communist beliefs. If we believe in freedom of speech we do have to tolerate those who express such beliefs. But to hold her up as a model of free speech taunts the rest of us: she was long a stalwart of a party that failed to speak out against the often violent repression of political opponents in the Soviet Union (from which she obtained the so-called Lenin Peace Prize); and she received a degree in the (so-called) German Democratic Republic. Davis studied there during the years when its government was second within eastern Europe only to Albania in the strictness of its repression. Indeed, the Lenin Peace Prize is even mentioned in her Cambridge citation – a slap in the face to all my colleagues who have experienced the regime in the Soviet Union and its satellites. Some years ago, King's College, Cambridge showed great insensitivity by hanging a painting of the Soviet flag in its bar. Davis's citation puts that painting in the shade. So here are some excerpts from a document that quite simply brings shame on Cambridge University: 'IT IS WITH joy and reverence that your Orator presents to you this woman of erudition and eloquence, whose very name is synonymous with the long and bitter struggle for all people to enjoy without fear equality of rights and freedoms, regardless of class, of colour and of gender… How worthy they are, who defend freedom of speech only as long as they agree with what is said!… Taught, then, by her own experience, on behalf of those the world over who lack their own voice and defence, she resolutely defends justice, she tirelessly opposes slavery, with almost divine strength she fights on behalf of liberty… In this present age, when we see civic virtues and the very foundations of civil society faltering under the attacks of billionaires, when the foul stench of fascism rises again across the globe, who could blame even the staunchest lover of liberty for feeling despondent?… She shows us that it is possible to be an academic, an activist, a scholar and a revolutionary.' Davis may, nonetheless, be offended. She is described as 'eloquent'. I have been warned by the equally radical Professor Priyamvada Gopal (the one with views about Winston Churchill) that I was wrong to praise David Olusoga on one occasion as 'eloquent', as the word is apparently seen by ethnic minorities as condescending. That apart, we have to ask whether she has ever criticised the appalling abuse of human rights and the suppression of free speech in the Soviet Union. One of her critics who attended school in the Soviet Union has described her as a 'Soviet propaganda icon' in those days. And although she studied Kant under the philosophers Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno she is clearly not being awarded her honorary degree on the grounds of scholarly attainment comparable to those figures. I have served on the Honorary Degree Committee in the past and have been impressed by the care and thoughtfulness given to each nomination, and by the sheer amount of detail about the nominees. Alas, the online page listing current members of this committee has been taken down for 'maintenance', but it is hard to escape the conclusion that places on the committee have been hi-jacked by those who prefer activists to real academics. As for the Orator, he really should know that his task is to address the whole University and the world beyond, and not just like-minded folk. Perhaps, though, he was acting under orders and does not believe anything that he said. He is the author of a learned article entitled 'Bulls' testicles and Mycenaean onomastics', and conceivably his encomium is, if not bull's testicles, deliberate bullsh*t.


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Trump expected to hit the golf course on first day in Scotland
Mr Trump drew crowds to Prestwick Airport on Friday evening as Air Force One touched down ahead of a four-day visit that will also take him to the club his family owns in Aberdeenshire. With a meeting scheduled with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer understood to be making the trip north on Monday, Mr Trump – a well-known golf enthusiast – appears to be free to play the vaunted Turnberry course on Saturday. But elsewhere, Scots will be protesting against the visit. The Stop Trump Coalition has announced demonstrations in Edinburgh – near the American consulate in the Scottish capital – and another in Aberdeen in the days before his visit there. As he landed in Ayrshire on Friday, the president took questions from journalists, telling Europe to 'get your act together' on immigration, which he said was 'killing' the continent. He also praised Sir Keir, who he described as a 'good man', who is 'slightly more liberal than I am'. Saturday will be the first real test of Police Scotland during the visit as it looks to control the demonstrations in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, as well as any which spring up near to the president's course. The force has asked for support from others around the UK to bolster officer numbers, with both organisations representing senior officers and the rank-and-file claiming there is likely to be an impact on policing across the country for the duration of the visit. First Minister John Swinney – who is also set to meet with the president during his time in Scotland – has urged Scots to protest 'peacefully and within the law'.