Latest news with #Dunford
Time Magazine
07-07-2025
- Health
- Time Magazine
Food Dyes Are Lurking in Surprising Places
Synthetic dyes are in far more foods in the U.S. than hot red candies and electric blue freezer pops. They lurk in a huge variety of foods and beverages—even ones that don't scream "food coloring." A recent study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics shows just how prevalent the dyes are. Using a large database of foods sold in the U.S., researchers analyzed their labels for seven synthetic dyes, almost all of which are derived from petroleum. Currently, nine synthetic dyes are permitted in what we eat and drink. (The FDA banned one, Red Dye No. 3, in Jan. 2025, and is in the process of revoking authorization for two others, Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2; all synthetic dyes are targeted to be phased out of the U.S. food supply.) In addition to finding these dyes in brightly colored processed foods, the researchers also found them in more muted foods like blueberry bagels, taco shells, carbonated drinks, and hot dog buns. Overall, they were present in about 1 out of every 5 foods and beverages. '[Finding it in] plain hot dog buns was shocking to me,' says Elizabeth Dunford, who led the study and is an adjunct assistant professor at the University of North Carolina's Gillings Global School of Public Health and a member of the George Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales. 'I don't think these are on the radar of the average consumer.' Read More: The 9 Most Underrated Healthy Foods The health risks of consuming synthetic dyes are not entirely clear, but studies in animals show they can damage DNA, contribute to overactivity of the immune system, and cause cancer. There is still not enough data exploring how these dyes can affect people, but researchers are exploring potential links between them and hyperactivity and neurobehavioral issues in children. Dunford says that given their prevalence in the U.S. food and beverage market, 'we do need new safety studies.' In April 2025, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that HHS and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would begin to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes in the food supply by the end of 2026 and replace them with natural alternatives. The agencies are also revoking approval for two food colorings—Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B—and plan to approve four new natural colorings for food. Kennedy said HHS would also work with the National Institutes of Health to conduct deeper studies on how food additives affect children's development. Currently, U.S. regulatory bodies categorize synthetic dyes as 'safe when they are used in accordance with FDA regulations,' which dictate which types of foods can contain them and in what amounts. But some states have taken stronger steps to warn consumers about their potential health risks. In 2023, California passed legislation to ban four additives from food sold in the state as well as in school nutrition programs by 2027. In March 2025, West Virginia enacted similar legislation targeting foods provided through school nutrition programs as well as food sold in the state. In June, Texas passed a law requiring warning labels on foods containing any of the more than 40 additives or dyes in foods, starting in 2027. Read More: Why Am I Sweating More Than I Used To? The warning labels are similar to those found on some foods in Europe that contain synthetic dyes or additives as a way for consumers to be aware of their exposure, even though the definitive studies on health effects have not yet been conducted. It's an effective way to alert consumers to potential harms and allow them to make more informed decisions about what they eat, says Dunford. 'The fact that there is a potential risk could make consumers take a different approach,' she says. Food manufacturers are also addressing synthetic dyes. J. M. Smucker Co. committed to removing synthetic food colorings from its products, such as its sugar-free fruit spreads, ice cream toppings and some Hostess products, by 2027. Kraft-Heinz also pledged to stop using synthetic dyes in any new products and to phase them out of existing products by 2027. A spokesperson for the company said Kraft removed artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives from its Mac & Cheese in 2016. General Mills said it would remove these dyes from cereals and foods provided to U.S. schools by summer 2026, and Hershey, ConAgra, PepsiCo, and Mars have also committed to taking synthetic dyes out of their food products. Such moves should help lift some of the burden off of consumers, who until this point have had to check labels and educate themselves about the presence of dyes in food and beverages. Dunford notes that some companies also sell two versions of the same product—one made with synthetic dyes and one without—so it's up to the consumer to distinguish between the two. 'Consumers shouldn't have to do that,' she says, which is why warning labels could be a better way to educate people about where synthetic dyes may be hiding.
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
New study reveals one in five foods and drinks in the US have synthetic dyes as ‘worst offenders' named
One in five packaged food and drink products in the U.S. contain synthetic dyes that have been associated with behavioral problems in children, researchers warned on Wednesday. The dyes, which are used to make items more colorful and enticing to consumers, are typically made from petroleum. Previous research from the state of California and its schools has shown that they may cause or worsen hyperactivity in some children. Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced plans to phase out the use of these dyes in the nation's food supply, citing health concerns. Companies have pledge to act in compliance with health officials, and Gatorade-maker PepsiCo said in April that it has been phasing out artificial colors. Kraft Heinz has pledged to eliminate all chemical food dyes within two years. The company makes the American staples Kool-Aid and Jello-O, which also contain multiple kinds of dyes. Now, the University of North Carolina, the D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, and international researchers at the George Institute for Global Health say that an analysis of 39,763 grocery store products has yielded concerning results. 'Given the accumulation of evidence over the last 40 years pointing to the health harms of synthetic dyes, it's disappointing to see that they're still so prevalent in our food system, particularly in products that are designed to appeal to children,' Dr. Elizabeth Dunford, a research fellow at The George Institute and an adjunct assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, said in a statement. Dunford led the research, which was published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 'The high levels of sugar in these brightly colored products suggests that companies are using synthetic dyes to market sweet foods and beverages, but both ingredients are linked to poor health outcomes,' she added. To reach these conclusions, Dunford and her co-authors assessed the ingredient labels for foods produced by the top 25 U.S. food manufacturers. They specifically focused on the five food categories most marketed to children, including sweet foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, ready-to-eat meals, breakfast cereals, and baked goods. The products in these categories were more likely to contain the dyes, which were found to be present in 28 percent. Furthermore, the average sugar content of products containing the dyes was 141 percent more than in those without the dyes. The National Confectioners Association said in a statement that the study had 'major gaps,' and that it 'ignores exposure to consumers.' 'Also, contrary to the authors' claims, the chocolate and candy companies mentioned in this study do not advertise to children under the age of 12 as part of a long-standing commitment,' it said. Several companies were identified as the 'worst offenders.' More than half of PepsiCo's energy drinks contained synthetic dyes, as well as 79 percent of all sports drinks included. That includes Gatorade, which contains several synthetic dyes to provide its vibrant hues. When it came to sweet foods, Ferrero and Mars used the most synthetic dyes. Ferrero, which acquired Nestle's confectionary business in 2018, produces SweeTarts and other colorful candy that uses the dyes. 'Ferrero and its related affiliated companies, including Ferrara Candy Company, are and will continue to be in compliance with local, state and federal laws and regulations, including those related to food additives. Our products are safe to enjoy,' a Ferrero spokesperson told The Independent. Neither of the other companies immediately responded to requests for comment from The Independent. The findings indicate, the authors alleged, that companies had not been phasing out the dyes. "The Food and Drug Administration recently asked the food industry to voluntarily phase synthetic dyes out of the food supply, but many companies had previously made promises to stop using them and then failed to keep those promises. So, it remains to be seen if food companies will comply with this new request.,' Dr. Thomas Galligan, the principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public interest, said. He advised that the administration require warning labels on these foods. 'But until the regulatory process catches up with the science, parents and health-conscious consumers should always check the ingredients label for synthetic dyes and for high levels of added sugar,' Dunford said. 'If a product contains either, you are better off not buying it, especially for your kids.'
Los Angeles Times
25-06-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
One in five U.S. food and beverage products is made with synthetic dyes
Odds are, something in your pantry is colored with petroleum. Synthetic dyes — which give fruit snacks their bright colors and cereals their rainbow crunch — are embedded into the everyday foods that fill grocery store shelves, often in ways consumers don't realize. However, concern over their health effects has been growing in recent years, fueled by mounting evidence that certain synthetic dyes may harm children's long-term health. A new study shows that the use of these chemicals in the manufacturing of foods and beverages in the U.S. is more widespread than many might expect. Nearly 1 in 5 food items and beverages sold in the U.S. contain synthetic dyes, and many of them are commonly marketed to children. For many Americans, synthetic dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 5 have become invisible staples of their diet. These petroleum-derived additives are commonly added to processed food and beverages to increase visual appeal and maintain color consistency. However, emerging research has made it clear that they also increase the risk of a range of adverse neurobehavioral effects — to which children are especially susceptible. A national study published Tuesday in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics looked at nearly 40,000 products produced by the top 25 U.S. food and beverage manufacturers, and found that synthetic food dyes were present in 19% of them. The study also determined that products using synthetic dyes were significantly more likely to be high in added sugars and low in nutritional quality. Even more concerning, researchers found that 28% of the products in categories most commonly marketed to children, including breakfast cereals, candy and sugar-sweetened beverages, contained synthetic dyes. Although the study focuses on the prevalence of synthetic dyes in U.S. food and beverages, Elizabeth Dunford, a lecturer at the University of New South Wales and co-author of the study, noted that its findings reinforce concerns among parents and public health experts about the potential neurological and behavioral effects of these additives. A 2021 assessment from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that these additives can 'cause or exacerbate neurobehavioral problems in children.' Similarly, a 2022 review found that 52% of studies found a significant association between synthetic dye consumption and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both those with and without existing behavioral disorders. These health concerns are not limited to behavioral problems. Red 3, for example, has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory rats, and Yellow 5 has been associated with allergic reactions in some individuals. However, despite decades of concern, current U.S. Food and Drug Administration registrations are still based on studies performed 35 to 50 years ago. In the recent study, the most common dyes that Dunford and her team found were Red 40, Yellow 5, and Blue 1, appearing in 14%, 11%, and 11% of products, respectively. Synthetic dyes were found in such products as blueberry bagels, guacamole, corn chips and hot dog buns — items that consumers might not expect them. 'Even as an educated person, I've been tricked,' Dunford said. 'Consumers can be misled … when there are all these claims on the front of the pack that say 'healthy' or 'made with real fruit juice,' but it still has dyes.' The study found that foods and beverages containing synthetic dyes, on average, had 141% more sugar than dye-free products. The correlation between sugar and synthetic dyes was even more pronounced when it came to products marketed to kids: foods and beverages in the five categories most heavily marketed to children had a mean total sugar content of 42.6 grams per 100 grams — 264% higher than comparable products in other categories. This marketing strategy, which pairs bright colors with high sugar content, may be part of the reason these foods are so appealing to kids. But Dunford said that in her personal experience, children won't notice if they're given replacement options without those additives. When buying snacks for one of her kid's parties, she opted for a version of a common brand of corn chips with no synthetic dyes or preservatives. 'I gave them to kids at a party, and no one said anything.' Dunford said. 'This just goes to show that it's really the marketing that drives the desire for these products and causes the problems.' Some steps have been taken to remove synthetic dyes from food and beverages. California banned Red 3 from all foods in 2023 and prohibited six other synthetic food dyes in foods sold in schools in 2024. More recently, in January of this year, the FDA announced that Red 3 will be banned nationwide in all food products by 2027. Warning labels are another potential option to limit synthetic dye consumption, and are being used in the European Union to identify foods containing Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6. However, the burden still falls largely on consumers to scrutinize ingredient lists and marketing claims. For many families, that means navigating a colorful and oftentimes misleading food landscape, armed with little more than the fine print on the back of a box.
Hamilton Spectator
18-06-2025
- Health
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeal court rules in 40-year-old sexual assault claim involving ‘Cool School' tutor Dr. James Anderson
Ten months ago, a Superior Court judge dismissed John Dunford's claim that Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) should be held liable for sexual assaults he says he suffered 40 years ago at the hands of 'Cool School' founder and tutor Dr. James Anderson . Tuesday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released a decision that rejected Dunford's appeal of that ruling. In the civil trial , Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette had found that Anderson 'committed sexual battery' against then-19-year-old Dunford, but ruled HHS should not be held liable for the educator's actions. In the appeal, Dunford's lawyer argued that the trial judge erred in not finding the relationship between HHS and Anderson sufficiently close that HHS was 'vicariously liable.' But the appeal court ruled that the trial judge had properly considered the 'total relationship between the hospital and Dr. Anderson' and that 'the hospital was too remote from Dr. Anderson to consider that he acted on the hospital's behalf.' Dr. James (Jim) Anderson was an anthropologist, the first chair of McMaster University's anatomy department, and a founder of the medical school who was also named Hamilton's Citizen of the Year. In the early 1970s he created 'Cool School,' an alternative for Hamilton teens who struggled in conventional classrooms and in life. When reached by The Spectator, a spokesperson for HHS declined to comment on the decision. The appeal court ruling added that Dunford must pay HHS $25,000 in costs for the appeal, 'as agreed upon by the parties.' Anderson, who died in 1995, was head of the adolescent services unit at Chedoke Hospital before HHS was created and absorbed the hospital in 1996. Dr. James (Jim) Anderson, a founder of McMaster's medical school, created 'Cool School' in the early 1970s, an alternative for Hamilton teens who struggled in conventional classrooms and in life. In the early 1970s, Anderson helped found the 'Cool School' alternative education program, which was run out of a building at Chedoke Hospital on the Mountain. Dunford attended the program between 1982 and 1983. In a letter, Anderson described Dunford as 'an intellectually gifted young man.' Anderson had been the first chair of McMaster University's anatomy department, a founder of its medical school and was named Hamilton's Citizen of the Year in 1975. Dunford, 62, had filed a $2.85-million lawsuit, with the civil trial held in September 2023. He initially filed his claim in 2013, but the action was dismissed in 2018 due to delays in filing motions by his first lawyer. He argued in his claim that the alleged sexual assaults against him at 19 years old had long-term impacts on his mental health which in turn contributed toward a 'loss of income … loss of earning capacity … and enjoyment of life.' In its statement of defence, HHS said it 'denies that any of the alleged assaults took place' and that if 'any such conduct took place,' HHS is not liable. The trial judge had ruled that while Anderson held medical privileges to practise at the hospital, he had acted toward Dunford 'on his own account' and not on 'behalf of the hospital.' The judge added that Anderson, as tutor, and Dunford, the student, had an 'unequal power relationship' that was 'exploited by Dr. Anderson,' who knew Dunford looked up to him and was vulnerable, yet he provided alcohol to Dunford and 'initiated sexual contact.' Dunford has until mid-September to file a motion of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. When reached by The Spectator, he wrote that he has not decided if he will pursue the case further. He added that he is 'disappointed' with the appeal court's ruling: 'The hospital's name is on the letterhead of my (Cool School) degree … But we couldn't get past the technical legal matter of vicarious liability.' He said 'the most important thing' to come out of his legal action, 'is that the trial judge believed me — believed that Dr. Anderson twice sexually assaulted me and that it negatively affected my life in every way. I had thought I would die and the truth would never see the light of day.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
CNBC
30-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
With Trump tariffs in limbo, the uncertainty is 'killing' us, business owner says: 'We need to know what things are going to cost'
A U.S. trade court has ruled on President Trump's new round of import tariffs — covering thousands of products from nearly every country — calling them "unlawful." For now, though, while the administration pursues an appeal, those tariffs remain in place. In the meantime, business owners say they're left guessing how much they'll pay to import goods with trade rules that can change seemingly overnight. "The uncertainty surrounding tariffs is tough for our business, because we need to know what things are going to cost us three, six and 12 months down the road," says Michael Brey, owner of Hobby Works, a Maryland-based retail chain. The tariffs, announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, added a 10% baseline tariff on most imported goods, a 20% tariff on Chinese imports and a 25% tariff on certain Canadian and Mexican goods that don't comply with the USMCA trade agreement. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that the administration overstepped its executive authority by using IEEPA to impose these tariffs. Tariffs imposed under other trade laws — including 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum and auto imports — remain in effect. In response to the ruling, the Trump administration argued that IEEPA gives the president broad authority in foreign affairs and that overturning the tariffs would improperly narrow those powers. "I think it's a good ruling," Oliver Dunford tells CNBC Make It. Dunford is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents small businesses challenging the tariffs. "There's a good chance that it will be upheld." On Thursday, a federal appeals court paused the lower court's ruling, keeping tariffs in place while the government appeals. The next round of legal filings is due by June 9. Many small businesses say the shifting trade landscape creates headaches beyond the direct costs of the tariffs. Since March, Hobby Works has worked through thousands of price changes to reflect fluctuating import costs, Brey says. However, if the ruling is ultimately upheld, businesses could be eligible for refunds on tariffs already paid, though it could take months for any process to play out, says Dunford. Annie Park, co-owner of Sarah's Homemade Ice Cream in the Washington, D.C. area, says she's "relieved" by the ruling. One of her suppliers had already offered tariff credits before the appeals court's stay, she says. In the meantime, her expenses have increased and her business is making adjustments to its operations, she says, such as discontinuing certain flavors due to higher costs. Even if these particular tariffs are struck down, the White House has other tools it could use to impose new ones, including sections of U.S. trade law that allow tariffs on national security or retaliatory grounds, Goldman Sachs analysts have noted. The administration could try to take the current case to the U.S. Supreme Court if it loses on appeal, which would extend the legal fight even further. For now, the uncertainty is likely to continue as the appeal moves forward and the administration weighs its next steps. "The volatility and uncertainty is making stock market speculators rich, but it is killing the people who actually have to operate the businesses," says Brey. ,
