Food Dyes: Can’t We Just Get Rid of Them?
Yes, we could—but should we? Let’s explore the practical implications.
With California's recent ban on Red Dye 3 and growing calls to eliminate synthetic food dyes a la the MAHA movement, many are asking: Why not just remove them entirely? After all, many countries use fewer food dyes than the US, and their populations still eat and enjoy food.
Yes, we could remove dyes from our food supply - they're not essential for nutrition or safety. But before rushing to eliminate these additives, we need to carefully consider what that change would actually mean: potential increases in food waste, higher production costs, and possible shifts to natural alternatives that come with their own challenges.
The key question isn't whether we can remove dyes, but whether we should - especially given the lack of convincing evidence of harm when dyes are consumed within established safety limits.
To answer this question thoughtfully requires understanding several complex factors: the deeply rooted psychology of how humans interact with food, the sophisticated science behind safety assessment, and the practical realities of our modern food system.
This article does not take a definitive stance on whether food dyes should be removed but aims to highlight key factors that merit consideration before making reactive decisions driven by emotional arguments rather than evidence.
The Psychology of Food Color: Hardwired Into Our Brains
Our relationship with food color runs deeper than simple aesthetics - it's fundamentally neurological. Research reveals that color influences not just what we choose to eat, but how we actually experience food at a brain level. Studies using functional MRI imaging show that color-appropriate foods activate different brain regions than foods presented in unexpected colors - even before tasting.
This isn't just about marketing or visual appeal. When food colors don't match our expectations, research shows we:
Perceive the flavor as less intense
Question the food's freshness and safety
Rate the overall product quality lower
Feel less satisfied with the eating experience
Studies consistently demonstrate that color serves as a crucial quality indicator, with consumers using it to assess:
Ripeness and freshness
Expected flavor intensity
Safety and quality
Overall acceptance
During processing and storage, foods naturally lose their color. Research shows consumers reject substantial numbers of safe but discolored food products, even when their nutritional value remains unchanged. This visceral response appears to be hardwired into our biology - likely an evolutionary adaptation that helped our ancestors identify ripe, safe foods from potentially dangerous ones.
The relationship between food color and acceptance isn't just about personal preference - it's deeply rooted in both psychological and preference-based factors. Studies show that consumers often judge the quality and nutrient content of food based on its color, which can be affected by manufacturing processes and storage conditions.
Understanding Safety: A Sophisticated Science
America's approach to food safety differs fundamentally from systems like the European Union's—though not in the way many assume. While the EU employs a hazard-based "precautionary principle," restricting substances based on any potential for harm regardless of exposure, the U.S. takes a risk-based approach, evaluating the actual likelihood of harm under typical conditions.
Before any food additive can enter the market, it must meet three fundamental criteria:
Demonstrate a genuine technological need that cannot be met by existing additives
Show it will not mislead or deceive consumers
Pass comprehensive safety assessments backed by conclusive scientific evidence
Many food colors are regulated under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), requiring manufacturers to use only the minimum amount necessary to achieve the desired effect. This ensures that no more color is added than what is essential for the product.
The Science of Safety Assessment
The FDA's safety assessment process is remarkably conservative. It starts with determining the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) - the highest dose showing no harmful effects in long-term animal studies. From there, scientists apply multiple safety factors:
10x reduction for using animal rather than human data
10x reduction for unknown human variability
10x reduction when extrapolating from subchronic to chronic data
10x reduction if using the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) instead of NOAEL
10x reduction for gaps or incomplete data
0.1-1x modifying factor applied to reflect study quality, with higher-quality studies near 1 and lower-quality ones exceeding 1 to address uncertainty.
The result? The final Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) might be hundreds or even thousands of times lower than levels showing no effects in studies. This ultra-conservative approach means that even if someone consumed far more than typical amounts, they would still be well within safety margins.
Understanding Total Dietary Intake
The FDA's Total Diet Study (TDS), one of the world's most comprehensive food safety monitoring programs, tracks how ingredients actually reach consumers. Scientists analyze:
Consumption patterns across different populations
Seasonal variations
Regional differences
Cumulative exposure from multiple sources
This sophisticated modeling draws on multiple data sources:
The What We Eat in America study provides detailed dietary information across diverse populations
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) adds critical health data
Market basket studies capture regional and seasonal variations
The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) offers data on U.S. diet quality, detailing nutrient intakes and food group consumption based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This includes national estimates of daily intake, distribution percentages, and nutrient/food group density by source from 1977 to 2018.
The Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) database, managed by the World Health Organization, collects and analyzes data on chemical contaminants in food, aiding in dietary exposure assessments and informing international food safety standards.
We also employ mathematical modeling techniques, to estimate food consumption habits. This approach helps address the challenges of collecting accurate data, which can be influenced by factors such as culture, socioeconomic status, and dietary preferences.
Together, these tools help scientists understand not just what people eat, but how different foods combine in real diets. So when people ask "What if I eat multiple foods with these dyes?" - this is something the FDA specifically assesses and accounts for in their safety evaluations.
Evidence on Health Outcomes
Despite widespread concerns, scientific evidence doesn't support claims of serious health risks from food dyes when consumed within established safety margins. The FDA's conservative approach to setting ADIs means that even at the highest typical consumption levels, exposure remains well below levels that might cause concern.
When safety concerns do arise, the FDA has several precisely defined options:
Prohibition represents the strongest action
Delisting removes substances from approved lists
The "No Longer GRAS" designation revokes Generally Recognized as Safe status
These tools allow quick action when legitimate safety issues are identified.
International Context: Beyond "Banned in Europe"
Claims about international bans often misrepresent regulatory differences. For example:
Red 40 (Allura Red AC) is permitted in both the US and EU but labeled differently (E129 in Europe)
The US prohibits some colorants allowed in Europe (Green S, Quinoline Yellow)
Europe permits some substances banned in the US (Cyclamate sweeteners)
These variations reflect different approaches to risk assessment rather than inherent safety concerns.
The Replacement Challenge
Consider a real-world example: When Canada restricted certain red dyes, manufacturers turned to beetroot juice as a natural alternative. While this solved the coloring issue, it introduced new challenges:
Higher production costs
Reduced shelf stability
New allergen considerations
Increased agricultural water usage
Supply chain complexities
This case illustrates the broader challenges natural alternatives face:
Reduced stability during processing and storage
Variable color intensity and consistency
Limited color palette options
Higher agricultural water usage
Complex supply chain needs
Increased production costs
Natural alternatives aren't automatically safer either. Beetroot extract, for example, can cause allergic reactions in some individuals. The "natural versus synthetic" dichotomy oversimplifies a complex reality where safety depends on specific substances and exposure levels, not origin.
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
The environmental impact of food dyes isn't straightforward. While synthetic dyes raise concerns about chemical pollution, natural alternatives can have significant environmental footprints:
Increased agricultural land use
Higher water consumption
Greater energy needs for processing
More complex transportation requirements
Potential food waste implications
Research shows that when natural dyes are extracted from food waste and applied as crude extracts, they can be environmentally competitive with synthetic dyes. However, additional processing steps like purification or encapsulation can significantly increase their environmental impact.
The Path Forward: Evidence-Based Decision Making
While food dyes aren't nutritionally necessary, removing them requires careful consideration of:
Replacement costs and scalability
Environmental impact
Technical feasibility
Consumer acceptance and psychology
Food waste implications
A more nuanced approach might include:
Graduated transitions where viable alternatives exist
Investment in research for stable natural alternatives
Clear labeling allowing consumer choice
Continued monitoring of safety data
Targeted restrictions where specific safety concerns arise
The Bottom Line
The debate over food dyes deserves more nuance than "natural versus synthetic" or "ban versus allow." While dyes aren't essential for nutrition, their use reflects both deep-seated consumer psychology and practical considerations. Any transition away from current colorants must consider not just theoretical hazards, but real-world impacts on food waste, consumer behavior, and economic accessibility.
The goal should be finding solutions that enhance safety while remaining practical, affordable, and sustainable—not rushing to broadly ban ingredients based on precautionary fears rather than demonstrated risks. Understanding both the sophisticated science behind safety assessments and the practical implications of alternatives helps us make better-informed decisions about our food supply.
Stay curious,
Unbiased Science