Ice cream makers pledge to remove artificial food dyes by 2028
The group of producers, which represent more than 90 percent of ice cream sold in the U.S. pledged to eliminate the use of certified artificial colors Red 3, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 from their ice cream and frozen dairy desserts.
The commitment applies to products made with real milk sold at food retail locations, not products made with nondairy ingredients and those made in-house at local businesses.
The IDFA noted artificial colors are safe for use in foods, but the group is looking to avoid sales disruptions because states are following Kennedy's urging and phasing out certified artificial colors in school foods.
'I am proud of ice cream makers and dairy foods companies for stepping up for American families by making this voluntary commitment to provide ice cream and frozen dairy treats without certified artificial colors,' Michael Dykes, president and CEO of IDFA, said in a statement. 'Americans are passionate about their ice cream, and the IDFA Ice Cream Commitment will ensure wholesome, indulgent ice cream products made with real milk from American dairy farmers remain a special part of our lives as state and federal policies evolve.'
Kennedy has made removing artificial dyes from food a key priority of his Make America Healthy Again movement.
Kennedy announced in April that he had a voluntary 'understanding' with the food industry to remove petroleum-based dyes by the end of 2026. He has long blamed artificial additives in food for chronic health problems, including obesity and heart disease.
Companies like Kraft Heinz and Nestle have already pledged to remove artificial dyes from their products. According to HHS, about 40 percent of the food industry has committed to a voluntary phase-out.
'I applaud the International Dairy Foods Association for stepping up to eliminate certified artificial colors,' Kennedy said in a statement. 'The American people have made it clear — they want real food, without chemicals. Together, we will Make America Healthy Again.'
During a press conference Monday, Kennedy said the Trump administration 'wants to encourage Americans to take control of their health — to eat right, to have lifestyle changes that save us all. And that's the patriotic thing to do, not only for our country but for every individual American. It's a patriotic duty to keep ourselves healthy.'
Monday's announcement came the same day the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of gardenia as a blue food coloring, the fourth color derived from natural sources the agency approved in the last two months.
Gardenia blue is derived from the fruit of the gardenia, a flowering evergreen. The FDA said it approved the color additive for use in sports drinks, flavored or enhanced non-carbonated water, fruit drinks and ades, ready-to-drink teas, hard candy and soft candy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How To Help Your Teen Apply To College
Applying for college is hard. There's navigating financial aid, the common app, preparing for the SATs, alumni interviews, and plenty more hoops to jump through. It's no wonder wealthy parents are willing to shell out thousands to help their kids get into the top schools. Unfortunately, most Americans don't have the resources to hire private tutors and consultants. And the high school counselors in charge of helping them are completely overtaxed: On average, for every counselor at a public high school, there are a whopping 376 students. To level the playing field, Jon Carson started the College Guidance Network (CGN). The company partners with higher education pros and leverages AI to help students and parents every step of the way and help them make the best decision — whether that leads to a university, a trade school, or a gap year. 'Our mission is to democratize expertise,' he tells us. We spoke to Carson about what parents can do to support their kids through this important stage of life, why fewer teens are opting to head straight to a four-year university, and more. Carson: I ran the largest college advising company in the country, so I'm familiar with the space. About 6 percent of the U.S. market uses advisors, and they're quite expensive, but aren't often good. What we've built is guidance in a box: I think of it as Masterclass meets AI for college planning. We create a personalized roadmap: You tell us a little about yourself and your goals and interests, and we assemble checklists and detailed project plans tailored specifically to your needs. We also have over 375 nationally recognized experts to help parents navigate the ins and outs of the application process, how to afford paying for college, and thinking about ROI — which is becoming ever more important as AI starts to eat into entry-level jobs. The ROI equation used to be highly skewed toward the investment piece. People were concerned about how much it'd cost and the loans they'd have to take out, but it was kind of a risk-free decision; all escalators went up. Now that's not really the case. It's become a much riskier decision. The percentage of high schoolers considering a four-year college is 45 percent — down 7 percent since the Covid era. A lot are going to community colleges, a bunch are doing gap years, the military's becoming more appealing. The first thing — and it's completely understandable — is that parents get too anxious. They can be overbearing or just not quite their best selves. So, the first thing I'd say is that you have to calm down because it'll help you make the best decision. The second thing is that they need to be more inquisitive about how an institution will help their kid in career placement. I think too often parents place too much importance on prestige. You've got to pull away and think about this like a financial decision — and don't get caught up in the other things. The earlier you get started, the better. We start our roadmaps in the ninth grade, and help kids start thinking about their summer jobs, how it'll reflect on their applications and things like that. I'd also tell parents that they should have monthly meetings to have a space to talk about this. We did ours on the first Saturday of every month at 11 a.m. What that did was deescalate conflict, because it made them feel like I wasn't nagging them all the time, and we had a designated space for those conversations. The other thing is that parents and students should really think of themselves as a team. This is a journey that they're taking together. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. The post How To Help Your Teen Apply To College appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What causes obesity? A major new study is upending common wisdom.
Obesity is uncommon among Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, Tsimane forager-farmers in Bolivia, Tuvan herder-farmers in Siberia, and other people in less-developed nations. But it's widespread among those of us in wealthy, highly industrialized nations. Why? A major study published this week in PNAS brings surprising clarity to that question. Using objective data about metabolic rates and energy expenditure among more than 4,000 men and women living in dozens of nations across a broad spectrum of socioeconomic conditions, the study quantified how many calories people from different cultures burn most days. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. For decades, common wisdom and public health messaging have assumed that people in highly developed nations, like the United States, are relatively sedentary and burn far fewer daily calories than people in less-industrialized countries, greatly increasing the risk for obesity. But the new study says no. Instead, it finds that Americans, Europeans and people living in other developed nations expend about the same number of total calories most days as hunter-gatherers, herders, subsistence farmers, foragers and anyone else living in less-industrialized nations. That unexpected finding almost certainly means inactivity is not the main cause of obesity in the U.S. and elsewhere, said Herman Pontzer, a professor of evolutionary anthropology and global health at Duke University in North Carolina and a senior author of the new study. What is, then? The study offers provocative hints about the role of diet and some of the specific foods we eat, as well as about the limits of exercise, and the best ways, in the long run, to avoid and treat obesity. - - - Is diet or inactivity causing obesity? 'There's still a lively debate in public health about the role of diet and activity' in the development of obesity, Pontzer said, especially in wealthy nations. Some experts believe we're exercising too little, others that we're eating too much, and still more that the two contribute almost equally. Understanding the relative contributions of diet and physical activity is important, Pontzer noted, because we can't effectively help people with obesity unless we first tease out its origins. But few large-scale studies have carefully compared energy expenditure among populations prone to obesity against those more resistant to it, which would be a first step toward figuring out what drives weight gain. So, for the new study, Pontzer and his 80-plus co-authors gathered existing data from labs around the world that use doubly labeled water in metabolism studies. Doubly labeled water contains isotopes that, when excreted in urine or other fluids, allow researchers to precisely determine someone's energy expenditure, metabolic rates and body-fat percentage. It's the gold standard in this kind of research. They wound up with data for 4,213 men and women from 34 countries or cultural groups, running the socioeconomic gamut from tribes in Africa to executives in Norway. They calculated total daily energy expenditures for everyone, along with their basal energy expenditure, which is the number of calories our bodies burn during basic, biological operations, and physical activity energy expenditure, which is how many calories we use while moving around. - - - A new theory of how our metabolisms work After adjusting for body size (since people in wealthy nations tend to have larger bodies, and larger bodies burn more calories), they started comparing different groups. Anyone expecting a wide range of energy expenditures, with hunter-gatherers and farmer-herders at the high end and deskbound American office workers trailing well behind, would be wrong. Across the board, the total daily energy expenditures of the 4,213 people were quite similar, no matter where they lived or how they spent their lives. Although the hunter-gatherers and other similar groups moved around far more throughout the day than a typical American, their overall daily calorie burns were nearly the same. The findings, though counterintuitive, align with a new theory about our metabolisms, first proposed by Pontzer. Known as the constrained total energy expenditure model, it says that our brains and bodies closely monitor our total energy expenditure, keeping it within a narrow range. If we start consistently burning extra calories by, for instance, stalking prey on foot for days or training for a marathon, our brains slow down or shut off some tangential biological operations, often related to growth, and our overall daily calorie burn stays within a consistent band. - - - The role of ultra-processed foods The upshot is that 'there is no effect of economic development on size-adjusted physical activity expenditure,' Pontzer says. In which case, the fundamental problem isn't that we're moving too little, meaning more exercise is unlikely to reduce obesity much. What could, then? 'Our analyses suggest that increased energy intake has been roughly 10 times more important than declining total energy expenditure in driving the modern obesity crisis,' the study authors write. In other words, we're eating too much. We may also be eating the wrong kinds of foods, the study also suggests. In a sub-analysis of the diets of some of the groups from both highly and less-developed nations, the scientists found a strong correlation between the percentage of daily diets that consists of 'ultra-processed foods' - which the study's authors define as 'industrial formulations of five or more ingredients' - and higher body-fat percentages. We are, to be blunt, eating too much and probably eating too much of the wrong foods. 'This study confirms what I've been saying, which is that diet is the key culprit in our current [obesity] epidemic,' said Barry Popkin, a professor at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an obesity expert. 'This is a well-done study,' he added. Other experts agree. 'It's clear from this important new research and other studies that changes to our food, not our activity, are the dominant drivers of obesity,' said Dariush Mozaffarian, director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston. The findings don't mean, though, that exercise is unimportant, Pontzer emphasized. 'We know that exercise is essential for health. This study doesn't change that,' he said. But the study does suggest that 'to address obesity, public health efforts need to focus on diet,' he said, especially on ultra-processed foods, 'that seem to be really potent causes of obesity.' Related Content He may have stopped Trump's would-be assassin. Now he's telling his story. He seeded clouds over Texas. Then came the conspiracy theories. How conservatives beat back a Republican sell-off of public lands
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump wields tariffs to sway Putin on Ukraine. Here's how they might work, or not
WASHINGTON (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has sacrificed an estimated 1 million of his soldiers, killed and wounded, in a three-year campaign to crush Ukraine. Now President Donald Trump is betting that his go-to economic weapon — tariffs — can succeed where Ukrainian drones and rockets haven't, and finally persuade Putin to end his war. Tariffs, which the U.S. president has called ' the most beautiful word in the dictionary,'' are taxes on imports. They are Trump's all-purpose fix — a tool he deploys to protect American industry, lure factories to the United States, tackle drug trafficking and illegal immigration, and raise money to pay for his massive tax cuts. On the campaign trail last year, Trump promised he'd negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. But months have passed without a peace deal, and the president has recently expressed frustration with the Russians. 'We're very, very unhappy with them ... I thought we would have had a deal two months ago, but it doesn't seem to get there,' Trump told reporters Monday. So in addition to agreeing to send more weapons to Ukraine, he's once again unsheathing tariffs. He said Monday the U.S. would impose 100% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, natural gas and other products if there isn't a peace deal in 50 days. The levies are meant to cause Russia financial pain by making its trading partners think twice before buying Russian energy. 'I use trade for a lot of things,'' Trump said, "but it's great for settling wars.' Trump did not spell out exactly how these "secondary'' tariffs would work, and trade analysts are skeptical. 'Unilateral tariffs are likely to be ineffective in influencing Putin's actions,' said Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who studies American trade policy. "Financial sanctions in cooperation with European and other allies are much more likely to damage Russian economy, but whether they soften Russia's approach is also uncertain.'' The secondary tariffs idea isn't new. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut earlier this year introduced legislation that would impose a 500% tariff on countries that buy Russian oil, petroleum products and uranium. If Trump goes through with his threat, his 100% tariffs have the potential to disrupt global commerce and push oil prices higher. They might also complicate Trump's efforts to strike separate trade deals with countries like China and India. The 100% tariffs would likely target China and India Since December 2022, when the European Union banned Russian oil, China and India have bought 85% of Russia's crude oil exports and 63% of its coal, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Finnish nonprofit. So they would likely be the two countries most affected by Trump's 100% import taxes. Trump has already tangled with China this year, and things did not go well. In April, Trump plastered a 145% levy on Chinese imports, and Beijing counterpunched with 125% tariffs of its own. The triple-digit tariffs threatened to end trade between the world's two biggest economies and briefly sent financial markets reeling. China also withheld shipments of rare earth minerals used in products such as electric vehicles and wind turbines, crippling U.S. businesses. After showing how much pain they could inflict on each other, the United States and China agreed to a ceasefire. A new 100% secondary tariff 'would blow up that deal,' said Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'China is particularly well-placed to hold out,' said Nicholas Mulder, a Cornell University historian. "All this would get us back to a position of full confrontation that would be uncomfortable for all sides.'' Hufbauer also noted that the secondary tariffs would also likely end 'any rapprochement with India'' — the world's fifth-biggest economy and one with which Trump is pursuing a trade deal. Energy prices could climb If Trump goes ahead with the tariffs, 'it would invariably lead to higher global energy prices,'' especially for natural gas, economists Kieran Tompkins and Liam Peach of Capital Economics wrote in a commentary Monday. Other oil-exporting countries have enough spare capacity to ramp up production and offset any loss of Russian oil exports in global market. But if they did, the world would have no buffer to rely on if there were an oil shock caused by, say, conflict in the Middle East — and prices could skyrocket. 'Removing that spare capacity would be akin to riding a bike with no shock absorbers,'' Tompkins and Peach wrote. The Russian economy has been resilient After Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its allies slammed Russia with sanctions. Among other things, the U.S. froze the assets of Russia's central bank and barred some Russian banks from using a key international payments system run by Belgium. With its allies from the Group of Seven rich nations, it also capped the price that importers could pay for Russian oil. The sanctions were expected to crush the Russian economy, but they didn't. Putin put Russia on a wartime budget, and high defense spending kept unemployment low. Military recruits were given big sign-up bonuses and the families of the fallen received death benefits, pumping income into some of Russia's poorer regions. To keep its oil sales going, Russia deployed "shadow fleets,'' hundreds of aging tankers of uncertain ownership and dodgy safety practices that delivered oil priced above the G7 price cap. 'The experience of the G7 oil price cap against Russia showed how challenging the enforcement of measures against the Russian oil trade can be,' Mulder said. Last year, the Russian economy grew 4.1%, according to the International Monetary Fund. But strains are showing, partly because Putin's war has made Russia a pariah to foreign investors. The IMF forecasts growth will decelerate to 1.5% this year, and last month the Russian economy minister warned the country is "on the brink of going into a recession.'' Trump's tariffs could increase the pressure, in part by driving down Russia's energy exports — and the revenue the Russian government collects from an energy tax. Tariffs are mostly untried as a diplomatic lever 'To my knowledge, tariffs have never been applied as an explicit anti-aggression measure,' said Mulder, author of a 2022 history of economic sanctions. "I am skeptical that the secondary tariffs threat will be effective.'' For one thing, he said, it's unclear whether Trump will actually impose them after 50 days. The president has repeatedly announced tariffs against other countries, and then sometimes suspended or tweaked them. For another, the secondary tariffs would target countries — namely China and India — that might have some sway in Moscow. 'The United States needs cooperation and collaboration to bring Russia to the negotiating table,' said Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute. "Threatening to harm the actors who actually have leverage over Moscow may backfire.'' ____ AP writers Katie Davies in Manchester, England, and Chris Megerian in Washington, contributed to this report.
