logo
Kennedy Wants to Ban Some Food Dyes. Here's What the Data Shows.

Kennedy Wants to Ban Some Food Dyes. Here's What the Data Shows.

New York Times25-04-2025
The Department of Health and Human Services announced this week that it would work to remove some artificial dyes from the U.S. food supply, citing concerns about how they might affect children's health.
Among the dyes that the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is targeting are colorings common in ultraprocessed foods like candy, chips and some cereals. In a news conference on Tuesday announcing the effort, Dr. Marty Makary, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, linked these dyes to obesity, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cancer and other health conditions in children.
Several, mostly small studies have found a link between some artificial food dyes and behavioral issues, which medical experts have said is cause for concern and warrants further research. But some said it is unclear if removing the dyes would have a meaningful effect on rates of childhood obesity, diabetes or other problems.
'Nobody's going to be sad to see the food dyes go, but it's definitely not the panacea that it's being portrayed as,' said Lindsey Smith Taillie, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Global Public Health.
What dyes are supposed to be phased out?
Dr. Makary named eight specific colorings that the agency would seek to phase out: Blue No. 1 and 2; Citrus Red No. 2; Green No. 3; Orange B; Red No. 40; and Yellow No. 5 and 6.
Exactly how the agency plans to do that remains unclear. Mr. Kennedy said major food manufacturers had reached an 'understanding' with him. The F.D.A. said it would begin the process of revoking the authorizations of Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, which are not widely used. The other six would be subject to Mr. Kennedy's nonbinding agreement with manufacturers.
Dr. Makary said in the news conference that the process would be complete by the end of 2026. But it remains to be seen whether that timeline is logistically possible or whether the government can enforce it.
In January, during the final days of the Biden administration, the F.D.A. banned another coloring, Red Dye No. 3, from food products. Research has shown that the dye, which had already been banned from cosmetics and some medications, can cause cancer in male rats.
Food manufacturers can use various natural compounds to color their products in the absence of artificial dyes, though switching a product from artificial to natural dyes requires time and testing. The F.D.A. said this week that it would 'fast-track' authorization of four alternatives: calcium phosphate, Galdieria extract blue, gardenia blue and butterfly pea flower extract.
There is limited evidence around the health effects of those alternatives, said Emily Barrett, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Rutgers School of Public Health who has studied food contaminants.
What does the research show?
While there is some research on food dyes and health risks, there are a few factors that make the subject hard to study.
It's challenging to examine any potential long-term effects, since the dyes pass relatively quickly through the body, said Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington. The trials that do exist in humans, Dr. Barrett noted, have largely examined the effects in the hours right after children consume artificial dyes.
Many of the studies also look at mixtures of dyes, which makes it hard to say that any one in particular is the most problematic, explained Asa Bradman, a professor of public health at the University of California at Merced who has studied food dyes.
But the evidence we do have points to a connection between certain synthetic dyes and behavioral changes in some children.
One 2007 study out of Britain involved giving young children drinks containing blends of food additives like Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6. The trial showed that these additives were linked with increased hyperactivity and lowered attention span over a six-week period.
And in a 2021 report, scientists in California examined 27 studies in children, most of which were small, and concluded that common synthetic food dyes — FD&C Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6 — can interfere with normal behavior in some children. The food industry has long said that the ingredients it uses have been well-studied and shown to be safe.
Nutrition experts noted that many ultraprocessed foods that contain artificial dyes also contain a lot of sugar, sodium and saturated fat, and far fewer nutrients than fresh foods do. While ultraprocessed foods have been linked to obesity and diabetes, there is no evidence directly linking artificial dyes to either condition, said Peter G. Lurie, the president of the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has lobbied to remove synthetic dyes from the food supply.
When it comes to rising rates of A.D.H.D., 'it's certainly not that food dyes are the single culprit, by any means,' said Dr. Barrett, who peer-reviewed the California report. Dr. Barrett said she would welcome larger, stronger studies 'to actually answer some of these questions definitively.'
Mr. Kennedy has said that the National Institutes of Health will study these kinds of food additives in more detail.
Will removing the dyes make children healthier?
Dr. Taillie said there was no harm in getting rid of artificial food dyes. Even if they don't cause serious health effects, she said, they don't provide benefits.
But she does not expect such a switch to improve rates of obesity and chronic disease, which she said are largely driven by other ingredients in the foods that children consume, not the dyes.
'You can take the yellow dye out of mac and cheese and replace it with turmeric, but you're still giving your kid a food that's ultraprocessed and packed with sodium,' Dr. Taillie said.
It's not clear what effect removing these dyes might have on children's behavior, Dr. Barrett said. Some European countries have stricter regulations on artificial colorings than the U.S., adding warning labels to foods with certain synthetic dyes. It isn't clear whether rates of A.D.H.D., for example, have decreased as a result of these policies.
'This one thing is unlikely to reduce A.D.H.D. diagnoses,' Dr. Sathyanarayana said. But, she added, it's possible that removing synthetic dyes might reduce children's symptoms in isolated cases. For example, a child who eats copious amounts of candy on Halloween may be less likely to become hyperactive afterward.
Dr. Taillie expressed skepticism that manufacturers would comply with Mr. Kennedy's voluntary 'understanding.' She said that historically, mandates have been much more effective than voluntary measures at getting particular ingredients out of the food supply. For example, she said, there wasn't much movement on trans fat until the government required that it be listed on nutrition labels.
Calley Means, a special government employee within the Department of Health and Human Services and an adviser to Mr. Kennedy, said, 'The food industry can do this the hard way or the easy way.'
He added: 'We are confident they'll take the easy way.'
In a statement on Tuesday, Melissa Hockstad, the president and chief executive of the Consumer Brands Association — which represents packaged goods companies including PepsiCo and Nestlé — said the companies she represented intended to 'increase the use of alternative ingredients.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Americans Are Tanning Like It's 1999
Americans Are Tanning Like It's 1999

Atlantic

time20 hours ago

  • Atlantic

Americans Are Tanning Like It's 1999

The early aughts were the worst possible kind of golden age. Tans were inescapable—on Britney Spears's midriff, on the flexing biceps outside of Abercrombie & Fitch stores. The Jersey Shore ethos of 'gym, tan, laundry' infamously encapsulated an era in which tanning salons were after-school hangouts, and tanning stencils in the shape of the Playboy bunny were considered stylish. Self-tanning lotions, spray tans, and bronzers proliferated, but people still sought the real thing. By the end of the decade, tanning's appeal had faded. Americans became more aware of the health risks, and the recession shrank their indoor-tanning budgets. But now America glows once again. The president and many of his acolytes verge on orange, and parties thrown by the MAGA youth are blurs of bronze. Celebrity tans are approaching early-aughts amber, and if dermatologists' observations and social media are any indication, teens are flocking to the beach in pursuit of scorching burns. Tanning is back. Only this time, it's not just about looking good—it's about embracing an entire ideology. Another apparent fan of tanning is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America's perpetually bronzed health secretary, who was spotted visiting a tanning salon last month. What tanning methods he might employ are unknown, but the secretary's glow is undeniable. (The Department of Health and Human Services didn't respond to a request for comment about the administration's views on tanning or Kennedy's own habits.) On its face, the idea that any health secretary would embrace tanning is odd. The Obama administration levied an excise tax on tanning beds and squashed ads that marketed tanning as healthy. The Biden administration, by contrast, made sunscreen use and reducing sun exposure central to its Cancer Moonshot plan. The stated mission of Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement is to end chronic diseases, such as cancer, by addressing their root causes. Yet the Trump administration's MAHA report, released in May, doesn't once mention skin cancer, which is the most common type as well as the most easily preventable. It mentions the sun only to note its connection with circadian rhythm: 'Morning sun synchronizes the body's internal clock, boosting mood and metabolism.' In fact, there's good reason to suspect that Kennedy and others in his orbit will encourage Americans to get even more sun. Last October, in a post on X, Kennedy warned that the FDA's 'aggressive suppression' of sunlight, among other supposedly healthy interventions, was 'about to end.' Casey Means, a doctor and wellness influencer whom President Donald Trump has nominated for surgeon general, is also a sun apologist. In her best-selling book, Good Energy (which she published with her brother, Calley Means, an adviser to Kennedy), she argues that America's many ailments are symptoms of a 'larger spiritual crisis' caused by separation from basic biological needs, including sunlight. 'Shockingly, we rarely ever hear about how getting direct sunlight into our eyes at the right times is profoundly important for metabolic and overall health,' she writes. An earlier version of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill tried to repeal the excise tax on tanning beds. (The provision was cut in the final version.) The alternative-health circles that tend to attract the MAHA crowd are likewise skeptical of sun avoidance. 'They don't want you to know this. But your body was made for the sun,' says a 'somatic energy healer' with 600,000 followers who promotes staring directly into the sun to boost mood and regulate the body's circadian rhythm. (Please, don't do this.) On social media, some influencers tout the sun's supposedly uncelebrated power to increase serotonin and vitamin D, the latter of which some erroneously view as a cure-all. Some promote tanning-bed use as a way to relieve stress; others, such as the alternative-health influencer Carnivore Aurelius, promote genital tanning to boost testosterone. Another popular conspiracy theory is that sunscreen causes cancer and is promoted by Big Pharma to keep people sick; a 2024 survey found that 14 percent of young adults think using sunscreen every day is worse for the skin than going without it. These claims range from partly true to patently false. The sun can boost serotonin and vitamin D, plus regulate circadian rhythm—but these facts have long been a part of public-health messaging, and there's no evidence that these benefits require eschewing sunscreen or staring directly at our star. Tanning beds emit little of the UVB necessary to produce vitamin D. Some research suggests that the chemicals in sunscreen can enter the bloodstream, but only if it's applied to most of the body multiple times a day; plus, the effects of those chemicals in the body haven't been established to be harmful, whereas skin cancer has. And, if I really have to say it: No solid research supports testicle tanning. Nor does any of this negate the sun's less salutary effects: premature aging, eye damage, and greatly increased risk of skin cancer, including potentially fatal melanomas. The specific questions raised in alternative-health spaces matter less than the conspiracist spirit in which they are asked: What haven't the American people been told about the sun? What lies have we been fed? Their inherent skepticism aligns with Kennedy's reflexive mistrust of the health establishment. In the MAHA world, milk is better when it's raw, beef fat is healthier than processed oils, and the immune system is strongest when unvaccinated. This philosophy, however flawed, appeals to the many Americans who feel that they've been failed by the institutions meant to protect them. It offers the possibility that regaining one's health can be as simple as rejecting science and returning to nature. And what is more natural than the sun? Now is an apt moment for American politics to become more sun-friendly. Tanning is making a comeback across pop culture, even as 'anti-aging' skin care and cosmetic procedures boom. Young people are lying outside when the sun is at its peak—new apps such as Sunglow and Rayz AI Tanning tell them when UV rays are strongest—to achieve social-media-ready tan lines. Last year, Kim Kardashian showed off a tanning bed in her office (in response to backlash, she claimed that it treated her psoriasis). Deep tans are glorified in ads for luxury goods, and makeup is used in fashion shows to mimic painful-looking burns. Off the runway, ' sunburned makeup,' inspired by the perpetually red-cheeked pop star Sabrina Carpenter, is trending. Veena Vanchinathan, a board-certified dermatologist in the Bay Area, told me that she's noticed more patients seeking out self-tanning products and tanning, whether in beds or outdoors. Angela Lamb, a board-certified dermatologist who practices on New York's well-to-do Upper West Side, told me her patients are curious about tanning too. 'It's actually quite scary,' she said. A recent survey by the American Academy of Dermatology found that a quarter of Americans, and an even greater proportion of adults ages 18 to 26, are unaware of the risks of tanning, and many believe in tanning myths, such as the idea that a base tan protects against a burn, or that tanning with protection is safe. ('There is no such thing as a safe tan,' Deborah S. Sarnoff, the president of the Skin Cancer Foundation, told me.) Recently, some experts have called for a more moderate approach to sun safety, one that takes into account the benefits of some sun exposure and the harms of too much shade. 'I actually think we do ourselves a bit of a disservice and open ourselves up to criticism if the advice of someone for skin-cancer prevention is 'Don't go outside,'' Jerod Stapleton, a professor at the University of Kentucky who studies tanning behaviors, told me. But the popular rejection of sun safety goes much further. Advances in skin-cancer treatment, for example, may have lulled some Americans into thinking that melanoma just isn't that serious, Carolyn Heckman, a medical professor at Rutgers University's Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, told me. Skin-cancer treatment and mortality rates have indeed improved, but melanomas that metastasize widely are still fatal most of the time. From the June 2024 issue: Against sunscreen absolutism In previous decades, tans were popular because they conveyed youth, vitality, and wealth. They still do. (At least among the fairer-skinned; their connotations among people of color can be less positive.) But the difference now is that tanning persists in spite of the known consequences. Lamb likened tanning to smoking: At this point, most people who take it up are actively looking past the well-established risks. (Indeed, smoking is also making a pop-culture comeback.) A tan has become a symbol of defiance—of health guidance, of the scientific establishment, of aging itself.

Gene therapy maker Sarepta tells FDA it won't halt shipments despite patient deaths
Gene therapy maker Sarepta tells FDA it won't halt shipments despite patient deaths

Yahoo

time21 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Gene therapy maker Sarepta tells FDA it won't halt shipments despite patient deaths

WASHINGTON (AP) — Drugmaker Sarepta Therapeutics (SRPT) said late Friday it won't comply with a request from the Food and Drug Administration to halt all shipments of its gene therapy following the death of a third patient receiving one of its treatments for muscular dystrophy. The highly unusual move is a latest in a string of events that have hammered the company's stock for weeks and recently forced it to lay off 500 employees. The company's decision not to comply with the FDA also places future availability of its leading therapy, called Elevidys, in doubt. The FDA said in a statement Friday night that officials met with Sarepta and requested it suspend all sales but 'the company refused to do so.' The agency has the authority to pull drugs from the market, but the cumbersome regulatory process can take months or even years. Instead, the agency usually makes an informal request and companies almost always comply. 'We believe in access to drugs for unmet medical needs but are not afraid to take immediate action when a serious safety signal emerges,' FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said in a statement. Elevidys is the first gene therapy approved in the U.S. for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, the fatal muscle-wasting disease that affects males, though it has faced scrutiny since its clearance in 2023. The one-time treatment received accelerated approval against the recommendations of some FDA scientists who doubted its effectiveness. The FDA granted full approval last year and expanded the therapy's use to patients 4 years and older, including those who can no longer walk. Previously, it was only available for younger patients who were still walking. Sarepta said Friday that its scientific review showed 'no new or changed safety signals' for younger patients with Duchenne's who have earlier stages of the disease. The company said it plans to keep the drug available for those patients. 'We look forward to continued discussions and sharing of information with FDA,' the company said in a statement. Sarepta halted shipments last month of the therapy for older boys with Duchenne's, which gradually destroys muscle and skeletal strength, resulting in early death. The move followed the deaths of two teenage boys taking the therapy. The company also confirmed a third death Friday: a 51-year-old patient who was taking an experimental gene therapy in a trial for a different form of muscular dystrophy. Sarepta said it reported the death to the FDA on June 20. The FDA said Friday it placed that trial on hold. Sarepta noted that the gene therapy involved in the incident uses 'a different dose and is manufactured using a different process,' than Elevidys. All three patient deaths were linked to liver injury, a side effect noted in Sarepta's prescribing information. Earlier this week Sarepta announced it would add a bold warning to drug and lay off a third of its employees. The company did not mention the third patient death in its news release or conference call announcing those changes, sparking pointed criticism from Wall Street analysts. Company shares fell more than 35% Friday to close at $14.07. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Sarepta has received FDA approval for three other Duchenne's drugs since 2016, none of which have been confirmed to work. The company has long been criticized for failing to complete several studies needed to secure full FDA approval of its drugs. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Gene therapy maker Sarepta tells FDA it won't halt shipments despite patient deaths
Gene therapy maker Sarepta tells FDA it won't halt shipments despite patient deaths

Yahoo

time21 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Gene therapy maker Sarepta tells FDA it won't halt shipments despite patient deaths

WASHINGTON (AP) — Drugmaker Sarepta Therapeutics said late Friday it won't comply with a request from the Food and Drug Administration to halt all shipments of its gene therapy following the death of a third patient receiving one of its treatments for muscular dystrophy. The highly unusual move is a latest in a string of events that have hammered the company's stock for weeks and recently forced it to lay off 500 employees. The company's decision not to comply with the FDA also places future availability of its leading therapy, called Elevidys, in doubt. The FDA said in a statement Friday night that officials met with Sarepta and requested it suspend all sales but 'the company refused to do so.' The agency has the authority to pull drugs from the market, but the cumbersome regulatory process can take months or even years. Instead, the agency usually makes an informal request and companies almost always comply. 'We believe in access to drugs for unmet medical needs but are not afraid to take immediate action when a serious safety signal emerges,' FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said in a statement. Elevidys is the first gene therapy approved in the U.S. for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, the fatal muscle-wasting disease that affects males, though it has faced scrutiny since its clearance in 2023. The one-time treatment received accelerated approval against the recommendations of some FDA scientists who doubted its effectiveness. The FDA granted full approval last year and expanded the therapy's use to patients 4 years and older, including those who can no longer walk. Previously, it was only available for younger patients who were still walking. Sarepta said Friday that its scientific review showed 'no new or changed safety signals' for younger patients with Duchenne's who have earlier stages of the disease. The company said it plans to keep the drug available for those patients. 'We look forward to continued discussions and sharing of information with FDA,' the company said in a statement. Sarepta halted shipments last month of the therapy for older boys with Duchenne's, which gradually destroys muscle and skeletal strength, resulting in early death. The move followed the deaths of two teenage boys taking the therapy. The company also confirmed a third death Friday: a 51-year-old patient who was taking an experimental gene therapy in a trial for a different form of muscular dystrophy. Sarepta said it reported the death to the FDA on June 20. The FDA said Friday it placed that trial on hold. Sarepta noted that the gene therapy involved in the incident uses 'a different dose and is manufactured using a different process,' than Elevidys. All three patient deaths were linked to liver injury, a side effect noted in Sarepta's prescribing information. Earlier this week Sarepta announced it would add a bold warning to drug and lay off a third of its employees. The company did not mention the third patient death in its news release or conference call announcing those changes, sparking pointed criticism from Wall Street analysts. Company shares fell more than 35% Friday to close at $14.07. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Sarepta has received FDA approval for three other Duchenne's drugs since 2016, none of which have been confirmed to work. The company has long been criticized for failing to complete several studies needed to secure full FDA approval of its drugs. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Matthew Perrone, The Associated Press

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store