Seeing Red: Is RFK Jr.'s Dye Ban Just a Colorful Distraction?

We'll no longer taste the rainbow, but will we actually be any healthier?

Yesterday, Health Secretary RFK Jr. announced that eight artificial food dyes will be eliminated from the US food supply by the end of 2026. This accelerates the previous FDA timeline for Red Dye #3 and expands the ban to include Blue #1 and #2, Green #3, Red #40, Yellow #5 and #6, Orange B, and Citrus Red #2.

This announcement represents a significant shift in food policy - but is it actually a meaningful step toward improving public health, or merely a colorful distraction? Let's dive into the technical realities that aren't making headlines…

The Announcement

Kennedy claims that these petroleum-based dyes are linked to a litany of health conditions and that eliminating them will improve American health. In his words: "If they wanna add petroleum, they want to eat petroleum... they ought to add it themselves at home, but they shouldn't be feeding it to the rest of us without our knowledge or consent."

This stance aligns perfectly with food influencers like Vani Hari (the "Food Babe"), who celebrated the announcement, saying, "I never thought I'd see the day when the FDA actually did this."

unbiasedscipod

A post shared by @unbiasedscipod

But here's what is missing from this conversation: a critical distinction between hazard and harm, and the complex manufacturing realities that make this timeline potentially unworkable.

Hazard vs. Harm: The Science Context Many Are Missing

While some animal studies show potential concerns about certain dyes at extremely high doses, the human evidence remains far less compelling. As we explained in our previous newsletter on Red #3, regulatory decisions are often based on legal requirements (like the Delaney Clause) rather than actual risk assessments.

The FDA's own analysis for Red #3 showed a 210-fold safety margin between typical human exposure and levels causing effects in rats. Similar margins exist for other dyes on this ban list.

The Context from Our Previous Coverage

As regular readers will know, we've been examining the science and policy implications of food dyes for months. In our November 2024 article "Food Dyes: Can't We Just Get Rid of Them?", we explored the deeply rooted psychology of food color, the sophisticated science of safety assessment, and the practical realities of our modern food system. As we explained then, while dyes aren't essential for nutrition, their use reflects both deep-seated consumer psychology and practical considerations that can't simply be dismissed.

More recently, in our January analysis "Red #3's Swan Song: The Science Behind the FDA's Latest Decision", we detailed how the FDA's decision on Red #3 stemmed not from new safety concerns or emerging evidence of harm, but from a specific legal requirement called the Delaney Clause. We highlighted the 210-fold safety margin between typical human exposure and levels causing effects in rats, and explained the unique historical context of color additive regulation.

Now with RFK Jr.'s expanded ban affecting seven additional food dyes, these same principles apply on an even larger scale - with proportionally greater manufacturing challenges and economic impacts.

The Hidden Manufacturing Challenges: What You Need to Know

Beyond the science, there are complex practical challenges to implementing this ban within the aggressive 20-month timeline that no one is discussing:

1. Supply Chain Limitations

The current global supply of natural food colorings is entirely inadequate to meet US demand if all products need to be reformulated:

• Natural colorant production would need to scale up by approximately 500% to accommodate the US market alone

• Growing crops like beetroot, turmeric, and annatto for colorants requires significant agricultural expansion that simply can't happen overnight

• Seasonal variations in natural colorant crops create inconsistent supply, unlike the steady availability of synthetic dyes

2. Technical Manufacturing Hurdles

Natural colorants differ drastically from synthetic dyes in how they're processed and used:

• Temperature sensitivity: Many natural colorants degrade at high temperatures used in food processing, while synthetic dyes remain stable.

• pH sensitivity: Natural colors often shift hues dramatically with changes in acidity, making consistent coloring across product lines extremely difficult.

• Water vs. oil solubility: Synthetic dyes are engineered for specific solubility profiles that natural alternatives can't match without complex modifications.

• Refrigeration requirements: Many natural colorants require cold storage throughout the supply chain, unlike shelf-stable synthetic dyes.

• Dust management: Natural colorants often come in powder form, creating airborne particulates that require specialized containment systems in manufacturing facilities.

3. Equipment and Facility Modifications

Food manufacturers can't simply "swap ingredients" - they need extensive facility modifications:

• New storage systems: Climate-controlled storage are needed for temperature-sensitive natural colorants.

• Different mixing equipment: Many natural colorants require different dispersion technologies.

• Dust collection systems: Powder-based natural colorants require industrial dust collection to prevent cross-contamination and worker exposure.

• Modified production lines: Different viscosity profiles of natural colorants often require reconfiguration of application equipment.

• Quality control instrumentation: New testing equipment is needed for different chemical properties of natural colorings.

4. Product Stability Challenges

Beyond the manufacturing process itself, the finished products face stability issues:

• Reduced shelf life: Many natural colorants fade more quickly, potentially increasing food waste.

• Light sensitivity: Products may require opaque packaging to prevent color degradation.

• Flavor interactions: Natural colorants often contain flavor compounds that can alter product taste.

• Different pH behavior: Products may need reformulation beyond just the coloring agents to maintain stability.

5. Unexpected Environmental Impacts

The "natural = better" assumption overlooks significant environmental considerations:

• Water usage: Natural colorant crops like beetroot require significantly more water than synthetic dye production.

• Land use expansion: Scaling up natural colorant production means converting more land to agricultural use.

• Energy consumption: Processing natural colorants often requires more energy-intensive extraction methods.

• Waste stream management: Natural colorant production creates organic waste streams that require different handling than synthetic production.

None of these challenges are inherently insurmountable given sufficient time, investment, and technical innovation.

The food industry has overcome similar hurdles before. However, the aggressive 20-month implementation timeline doesn't allow for gradual adaptation, and the costs of this rapid transition will inevitably be passed on to consumers.

The concern isn't that we can't eventually transition to natural colorants, but rather the economic and accessibility impacts of forcing this change at this pace without adequate preparation of the supply chain and manufacturing infrastructure.

The Economic Reality Nobody's Talking About

The technical challenges of this transition will inevitably create economic ripple effects that consumers will feel at the checkout counter. Jason Armao, director of applications and innovation at natural color manufacturer D.D. Williamson, has acknowledged that "food dye costs can increase tenfold or more in a conversion from synthetic to natural". This isn't just industry scaremongering – it's chemistry and supply chain economics.

Natural colors contain significantly less pigment than synthetic alternatives. Sensient Food Colors, a major industry supplier, notes that "colors from botanical sources often contain less than 2% pigment versus 90% in a synthetic dye". This fundamental difference means manufacturers need to use much more of a natural colorant to achieve similar visual results, dramatically increasing raw material costs.

These increases will disproportionately impact:

• Budget-friendly food options that operate on razor-thin margins

• Small and medium manufacturers lacking capital for rapid reformulation

• Products requiring stable colors through varying temperatures and pH conditions

• Seasonal products dependent on consistent year-round coloring

While larger companies may absorb some costs initially, many manufacturers will have no choice but to pass these increases to consumers, potentially adding $1-3 to previously affordable food items. The price hikes will be most noticeable in products where visual appeal is a primary selling point: candies, cereals, beverages, and children's snacks.

Preemptively Addressing Common Questions

"But aren't natural dyes better for us anyway?"
Natural dyes may avoid specific concerns associated with synthetic versions, but they're not automatically healthier. Natural colorants can introduce new allergens (like with some vegetable extracts) and may require more intensive agricultural practices. The real question is whether this specific regulatory approach at this time is the most effective way to improve public health.

"Why can't food just look like what it naturally is?"
For fresh whole foods, that's a reasonable expectation. But many processed foods undergo changes during manufacturing that affect appearance. Color can provide important information about flavor and quality that consumers rely on. If you've ever seen a pale strawberry yogurt or a grayish mint ice cream, you've experienced why manufacturers use colorants.

"Isn't Europe already doing this? Why can't we?"
The European approach is more nuanced than commonly portrayed. Many synthetic colors are still permitted in Europe but require warning labels rather than outright bans. Their transition has happened over a longer timeline, allowing for manufacturing adaptation. Direct comparisons oversimplify complex regulatory and market differences.

"I've seen natural alternatives at my local health food store. What's the big deal?"
Small-batch specialty manufacturing faces very different challenges than the nationwide food supply. What works at a premium price point for a niche market becomes much more complex when scaling to feed millions of Americans across all economic brackets. We need to consider impacts on food accessibility across the entire population.

The Bottom Line: Reality Check on Food Coloring

Let's be clear: Food coloring doesn't add nutritional value to our diets. But removing it isn't going to solve America's health problems either.

This isn't to say we need synthetic dyes in our food. The psychological and sensory aspects of food color are real and important – studies using functional MRI imaging show that color-appropriate foods activate different brain regions than foods presented in unexpected colors. However, there are legitimate reasons to question whether this particular regulatory approach at this specific moment is the right priority.

When we're facing significant challenges with food insecurity, nutrition education, and accessibility of fresh foods in many communities, focusing our limited regulatory resources on food dyes feels misaligned. Meanwhile, the very real manufacturing and cost implications will be felt most acutely by those already struggling with food costs.

This policy shift risks creating the illusion of meaningful action while potentially:

• Increasing food costs for budget-conscious consumers

• Creating unnecessary manufacturing disruptions

• Diverting resources from more impactful health initiatives

• Promoting a simplistic "natural = healthy" narrative that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny

While we should continuously evaluate food additives for safety, we need to be realistic about implementation timelines and the complex manufacturing realities involved. A more pragmatic approach would include:

• Phased transition periods based on technical feasibility

• Investment in scaling up natural colorant production before mandating switchovers

• Support for small and medium manufacturers to adapt

• Careful monitoring of unintended consequences like increased food waste or higher prices

The critical questions we should be asking:

• Will this regulatory change measurably improve public health outcomes?

• Is the timeline realistic given supply chain and manufacturing realities?

• How will increased costs affect food accessibility for vulnerable populations?

• Could this divert attention and resources away from more impactful health initiatives?

While we're busy arguing about color additives, we're not addressing the fundamental nutrition issues driving chronic disease: overall dietary patterns, food access, nutrition education, and economic factors that shape our food choices.

As always, we'll continue monitoring this situation and providing updates as implementation challenges emerge.

Stay curious,

Unbiased Science

P.S. Want to support this kind of analysis? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our work. While all our articles are always completely free to read, paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on vaccine policy and public health. Thank you for considering it!

---

Sources:

• USA TODAY: "Eight artificial dyes will be phased out of US food supply, Health Secretary RFK Jr. says" (April 22, 2025)

• American Chemical Society: "Eating with Your Eyes: The Chemistry of Food Colorings"

• Chicago Tribune: "Serving up a debate: Natural vs. synthetic food coloring" (2013)

• Sensient Food Colors: "The Economics of Natural Color Pigments" (2019)

• Food Dive: "Big Food hit pause on switching to natural colors. What will it take to make the shift?" (2021)

• DyesPigments.net: "Natural Food Colors vs. Synthetic Food Colors" (2024)

• Kent: "Synthetic Dyes vs. Natural Dyes" (2021)

• Our previous newsletters: "Food Dyes: Can't We Just Get Rid of Them?" (Nov 15, 2024) and "Red #3's Swan Song" (Jan 15, 2025)