Officials move to ban controversial food item found in schools across the country: 'Prioritizing student health'
Senate Bill 69 would prohibit selling or distributing food and beverages that contain Red 40 at public and charter schools, according to the Delaware News Journal. Sen. Eric Buckson is the primary sponsor of the bill, which looks to protect students from potential health risks associated with the food additive.
Approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Red 40 is a synthetic food dye made from petroleum. The dye is used in various foods, including cereal, beverages, dairy products, and sugary treats.
However, Cleveland Clinic named allergic reactions and migraines as potential side effects. There are also studies that link artificial food dyes to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in kids.
The introduction of the bill comes just months after the FDA announced a nationwide ban on Red 3 in food, beverages, and drug products. Red 3 and Red 40 are not the same, though they pose similar concerns. According to scientists, Red 3 may cause cancer and thyroid issues, which prompted the European Union to ban the additive over 30 years ago.
Delaware isn't the first state to take a stand against artificial food dyes. Many states across the nation have worked to pass laws prohibiting synthetic food coloring. Companies are moving away from dyes, too. PepsiCo is in the process of phasing out synthetic dyes used in snacks. The company will use natural ingredients instead.
Banning artificial food dyes is a win for the environment as well. According to one study, synthetic dyes are harmful to animals, plants, and humans. Untreated synthetic dyes released into bodies of water can reduce light for photosynthesis, affecting the entire food chain.
If the new bill is passed in Delaware, the restrictions would take effect in schools by July 1, 2026. The Senate Education Committee is reviewing the legislation. "The bill ensures Delaware is prioritizing student health while providing room for reasonable exemptions as necessary," Buckson said.
Do you think kids learn enough about gardening in school?
Not even close
There could be more focus
It's probably about right
It doesn't belong in school
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
7 Foods You Should Never Eat Before Bed If You Want a Good Night's Sleep
When it comes to getting a good night's sleep, some foods that will help you relax and promote sleepiness by regulating your sleep-wake cycle. On the other hand, certain foods and drinks are best avoided if you're looking to prioritize good sleep. They contain substances that will stimulate your body or spike your blood sugar levels, neither of which will lead to a restful night. We spoke with nutrition experts who outlined several major no-nos when it comes to eating for better sleep. Related: The 5 Best Herbal Teas for Sleep—and the Right Way to Brew Them Should You Eat Anything Before Bed? Is it bad to eat before bed? Yes, say experts, what you eat and drink before bed can make you toss and turn all night. Heavy meals too close to bedtime are some of the most obvious culprits of disrupted sleep because they can give you indigestion. According to the Cleveland Clinic, you should stop eating at least three hours before bed to give your body ample time to wind down and digest that last meal. Beyond this, certain foods and drinks are likely to disrupt your sleep. Caffeinated Drinks Caffeine in coffee, some teas, and cola drinks can linger in your system for up to 6 hours, warns Manaker, blocking sleep-inducing chemicals and keeping you wired. Amidor adds that some individuals can be sensitive to the low dosages of caffeine found in decaf drinks, so make sure you're steering clear of those as well. Dark Chocolate Chocolate contains both caffeine and theobromine, both of which act as stimulants and may disrupt your sleep cycle, says Manaker. Alcoholic Beverages Alcohol might help you feel relaxed and sleepy at first, but it will ultimately wreak havoc on your sleep, says Manaker. It will disrupt the REM phase of your sleep that makes you feel rested and refreshed upon waking. Just a few drinks (and for some, even one drink) will have you waking more frequently and sleeping less soundly. Alcohol also increases urination, so you're more likely to wake up to use the bathroom. Not to mention, the sleep you do end up getting might be riddled with snoring or vivid (and often unpleasant) dreams. Heavy and Fatty Foods Fast food meals like burgers, fries, and fried chicken are loaded with saturated fats that can cause heartburn, indigestion, and restless sleep, says Amidor. Lying down with a belly full of this type of food means your digestive system is working overtime when it should be at rest. Not to mention, it's widely believed that heavy foods close to bedtime can lead to nightmares. Spicy Foods If you're eating a late dinner, you might want to lay off the hot sauces and other spicy foods, says Amidor. Chemical compounds that cause spiciness in foods, like capsaicin, might increase body temperature, stimulate your nervous system, and often cause heartburn or acid reflux—all of which make falling asleep more difficult. For some, spicy meals also raise the risk of sleep apnea-like symptoms due to acid reflux. Sugary Foods and Refined Carbs Put down that nighttime bowl of sweetened cereal. Candy, sugary cereals, white bread, and pasta consumed too close to bedtime can lead to rapid spikes (and rapid crashes) in blood sugar, which in turn can cause nighttime awakenings, both experts note. They can also reduce deep sleep and overall sleep quality. Dried Fruit Dried fruit is generally considered healthy in moderation, but it's also high in sugar and fiber, which means that it can cause bloating, gas, and a restless night if eaten before bed. Read the original article on Martha Stewart
USA Today
19 hours ago
- USA Today
People living with Alzheimer's ‒ and their caregivers ‒ need more than hope
I hope my film sparks a conversation not just about the search for a cure but also about the necessity to care ‒ honoring the people we love and the caregivers who ease their journeys. In June 2021, I was sitting in a small outside café in Stowe, Vermont. My husband and I were chatting with a lovely elderly Peruvian man sitting nearby. His name was Pedro. He had a character-rich face, a warm smile and a mischievous twinkle in his eye. I'm a casting director in Los Angeles, perpetually on the lookout for interesting faces, and my husband and I love meeting people and striking up conversations with strangers. Just as I was about to quiz Pedro more on his life, I got a phone call from a recruiter at the University of Southern California's Keck medical center about a new drug trial for Alzheimer's disease. My husband, Charlie Hess, was living with early onset Alzheimer's, and though you might not notice right away, the challenges were real. Living with Alzheimer's doesn't need to be a story of pure tragedy. It's a terrible disease ‒ a disease that should be much further along in developing treatments ‒ but because Alzheimer's is more invisible than, say, a person battling cancer, the disease has largely been ignored. This accelerated trial for the drug known as donanemab held the promise of slowing the progression of Alzheimer's by clearing the amyloid plaque that many view as a key driver of the disease. It's a more complex trajectory ‒ Alzheimer's is a multifactorial disease ‒ but clearing amyloid might be akin to prescribing statins for people with high cholesterol to help keep their arteries from clogging and causing a heart attack. The USC recruiter insisted this medication donanemab was much better than Aduhelm, a drug I was well aware of that got provisional accelerated approval later that summer in 2021 but was mired in controversies from the get-go. The Food and Drug Administration's expert outside advisers voted not to approve it for many reasons, and Aduhelm finally was removed from the market by Biogen in 2024, as the manufacturer turned its focus toward another Alzheimer's medication that showed more promise. But the jury is still out whether these drugs, which cost up to $32,000 a year, and lengthy infusion therapy will be the answer. There are significant risks for Alzheimer's patients, and issues of cost and access to consider. I was at a loss that June day four years ago. The infusion, given once every six weeks, might slow progression. And I thought, while Charlie was still talking to Pedro, that in a year Charlie might lose conversations like this. The recruiter pressed me: Charlie was on their short list, and if we didn't decide in 24 hours, it would be gone. My stomach tightened. My mind kept thinking, 'If not now, when?' Families living with Alzheimer's are at a tipping point We said goodbye to Pedro. I looked Charlie in the eye and told him we had gotten a 'golden ticket' ‒ a spot in a trial for a new drug ‒ and we had to decide immediately. My husband was clear in his thinking and calm in his delivery. 'Why would we rush back to LA for a drug that is only a pile of promises?' Charlie said. 'I feel way better here in nature, slowing down. We have great doctors. If this drug proves to be the one, I'm sure you'll find a way to get me back in. The only thing I know is that nobody knows what to do with this, and we just have to keep living.' Opinion: Is it Alzheimer's or am I just getting old? Here's how to find an answer. Charlie sometimes struggles for words, but then suddenly finds clarity and speaks directly. That June in 2021, he did just that, and I think he was right. In February 2025, in a New York Times opinion column, journalist Charles Piller raised alarm about fraud and controversy in Alzheimer's research. His book, "Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's," sent shock waves across the Alzheimer's community. It's a messy story, and I do not think all researchers are cooking their studies. Even so, drug companies certainly have a huge financial incentive, and we ‒ caregivers and people living with Alzheimer's ‒ are at a tipping point. What Alzheimer's looks like from the inside There may be more drugs approved in the future that are worth pursuing for some, but the risks are high, the costs are staggering, and the resources we put toward selling hope could undermine health care for everyone. Hope itself is perhaps the most powerful drug of all, but it won't cure Alzheimer's. We need a cure, but we also need to rethink the narrative. It's time we fund caregiver supports, and find a way to help people live with dignity and compassion alongside their disease. It's time we recognized that Alzheimer's doesn't just affect a person ‒ it profoundly impacts the whole family. Opinion: Dementia care for families has an unexpected ally ‒ you My own experience with Alzheimer's and this ongoing journey alongside Charlie profoundly influenced me to make "Walk With Me," a documentary that traces our life together and the quiet, intimate struggles of caregiving. The film is a deeply personal view into what Alzheimer's looks like from the inside ‒ not just for the person living with it, but also for the family that bears it alongside them. "Walk With Me" will be screening on Tuesday, July 29, in Toronto, Canada, in the same week that more than 10,000 people will be gathered there at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference to discuss new research, care options and more. I will be at the Toronto conference with my hopes up. But what I fear most is that what the drug companies will be selling is not a cure yet but rather another hope. While hope is a powerful drug, we are due for a reality check. We need to learn to live better by strengthening caregiver supports ‒ this vast, unpaid workforce that underpins much of health care today. My hope is that my film sparks a conversation not just about the search for a cure but also about the necessity to care ‒ honoring the people we love and the caregivers who make their journeys more human and compassionate. According to Statistics Canada, 4 in 10 Canadians ages 15 or older provide unpaid care, amounting to more than $97 billion in annual economic value. In the United States, 1 in 5 Americans provide unpaid care, valued at over $470 billion a year. Let's stop selling hope and start funding better care for all. Heidi Levitt is a casting director in Los Angeles. Her documentary "Walk With Me" will be screening on July 29 at the TIFF Lightbox theater in Toronto, Canada. It is playing film festivals all over the United States and internationally with the goal to find distribution to play the film widely theatrically and online. Please check the website for updates.
Newsweek
20 hours ago
- Newsweek
Is the FDA Doing Enough About Food Additives?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Food additives have come under increasing scrutiny in recent months, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced a ban on eight frequently used food dyes from food and beverages. Two petroleum-based synthetic dyes are set to be phased out imminently, while the other six must be removed from products by the end of 2026. Kennedy Jr has been a vocal critic of food additives, based on their impact on health, particularly their potential neurological effect on children, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been approving alternative food dyes that come from natural, rather than synthetic, sources. Food dyes have been linked to a range of health effects, including increased cancer risk, behavioral issues in children, hormonal disruption, and a higher likelihood of obesity. However, the answer is not as simple as removing all additives from food. "Many additives are needed, are not harmful, and are an important part of food flavor, texture, and stability," Emily Broad Leib, director of both the Food Law and Policy Clinic and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, told Newsweek. Although, that said, as "it has been so easy to create and add new additives to food," Broad Leib added, "we have really allowed companies to get out of hand with how many things they are adding, without having clear requirement that they benefit consumers and without enough knowledge about their impacts alone or cumulatively." What Is The FDA Doing About Food Additives? The FDA recently banned several food dyes: Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, which will lose their authorization soon, and six FD&C dyes which are scheduled for removal by 2026, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow Nos. 5 and 6, and Blue Nos. 1 and 2. The FDA has also requested that food companies remove FD&C Red No. 3 sooner than the 2027 to 2028 deadline previously required. Earlier this month, the FDA also approved the use of the color gardenia (genipin) blue in various foods, which is derived from the fruit of the evergreen, gardenia. This was the fourth naturally-derived color approved by the FDA for use in foods in the last two months. The FDA is also currently reviewing a number of other additives, with potassium bromate, propylparaben and titanium dioxide all on the FDA's list of "chemicals in the food supply under FDA review." According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), titanium dioxide has been associated with potential immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity, while potassium bromate is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Propylparaben is thought to be a hormone disrupter. More recently, the FDA added butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and azodicarbonamide (ADA) to its list for reviewing and has moved to ban brominated vegetable oil (BVO) . BHA is believed to increase risk of cancer and cause hormone disruption, while ADA is believed to form carcinogenic byproducts, and BVO is believed to harm the nervous system, reproductive system and thyroid hormone system, according to EWG. An FDA spokesperson told Newsweek the FDA has also recently released for public comment its Post-market Assessment Prioritization Tool for ranking chemicals in the food supply, enabling it to "determine which chemicals the agency would prioritize for post-market assessments." This will allow the FDA to "allocate resources more efficiently, ensuring that the agency focuses on food chemicals that may present the greatest potential public health risk, including risk to sensitive populations, and are of high public concern," they said. "Determining if a chemical—either one intentionally added to food or a contaminant that is not intentionally added—needs to be further evaluated based on new information takes a structured and science-based approach to ensure that the FDA's reviews are protective of the health of consumers," FDA spokesperson said. "The FDA is committed to radical transparency as the agency develops processes for prioritizing chemicals in food for a post-market assessment. These processes will help to ensure that FDA is taking a risk-informed approach in reviewing data and information about the safety of chemicals in the food supply to protect the health of consumers." Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty What States Are Doing About Food Additives California was the first state in the country to ban certain food dyes, and it has already enacted legislation banning the sale, distribution, and production of food products containing BVO. Since then, more states have followed suit with similar proposals. Many other states now have pending legislation introduced this year to ban food dyes and additives—particularly in school settings to protect children from potential health risks. Florida proposed legislation to ban schools serving food containing BHA, ADA, BHT and BVO, and many other additives. However, the bill (SB 560) died in the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16. Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, are also considering bans on BVO and other additives under FDA review in school meals, while New Jersey and Wisconsin are seeking to ban ADA as well as BVO and others. Pennsylvania is trying to ensure any products containing BHA come with a clear warning. Some states like Hawaii, Illinois, and Ohio have sought to ban the use of single-use food packaging and serving containers being intentionally manufactured to have "forever chemicals," known as PFAS, which are carcinogenic to humans. Broad Leib told Newsweek that some states, including Louisiana, are also trying to ban the use of aspartame, an artificial sweetener, cottonseed oil, and grapeseed oil. Does the FDA's Review of Food Chemicals Go Far Enough? Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics and environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, told Newsweek it was "absolutely not" the case that the FDA's current process for regulating and reviewing additives in food went far enough. "We have some of the most lax regulations through generally recognized as safe (GRAS) provisions," she said. "While FDA focusing on dyes and these three additives is a good first step, it is very minuscule in the scope of the broader picture." "I think that FDA has been a little haphazard in their review of chemicals to date," Broad Leib said. Last fall, the agency introduced a discussion paper on how to better manage the process for post-market review of chemicals, however, Broad Leib said that, in her opinion, this "was not strong enough." The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic suggested in a comment to the FDA on its proposal that if a state or peer jurisdiction bans a chemical, it should trigger an immediate 120-day review period for FDA to assess the chemical in question. Broad Leib said that FDA has not yet issued any "general response to that docket and has not put out an updated discussion paper." Commenting on the agency's release of a new document for public comment on how to prioritize chemicals for review, Broad Leib said: "I think [it] shows that they are thinking about the issue and trying to get better at flagging chemicals of concern." Overall, despite the FDA's efforts, Broad Leib said that she thought "there are some serious gaps in FDA's review of chemicals, both premarket and post-market." She said that there is a "loophole" in premarket review, whereby companies can "self-designate a substance to be GRAS and thus avoid the additive process, avoid FDA oversight, and even avoid FDA notification." All of these processes are voluntary for GRAS substances, meaning that this enables many substances to sneak into food "without FDA even having them on its radar," she added. She said that the FDA "has long been without a strong process for transparently identifying substances of concern, quickly reviewing evidence, and then taking decisive action when needed."
