This is such an important discussion. And I agree that sure, it's not going to hurt anyone nutritionally to phase them out. But the economic impacts surely won't be zero. And at the end of the day, does this actually make a noticeable improvement in the overall health of Americans? Not really.
That said, on a personal note, my concern is this--"Seasonal variations in natural colorant crops create inconsistent supply, unlike the steady availability of synthetic dyes..." While what I'm about to say may seem dramatic to some...well, if you know, you know. People with sensory challenges--think autism, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, etc. Hell hath no fury like a change in a person's safe food. 😢
Any thought or comments from the regulatory process perspective? I would guess that an effort to remove existing FDA approvals would require a proposed rule, notice and comment period a final rule and an implementation period. If so, there is no way RFK’s effort can succeed in this timeframe. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
I love this! So well articulated. Is there a potential outcome that people will just…eat less highly processed food? If the prices go up drastically or the color is unappealing because the product is a Frankenstein concoction of grey and beige, would that drive consumers to ultimately cut out the food that we definitely know is not good for us? A pretty indirect and kind of problematic way of getting there, but does it start the ball rolling to an actual positive outcome? I imagine more of these bans or restrictions are coming.
Really appreciate this deep dive — especially the attention to manufacturing complexity.
I recently wrote about the Red Dye 3 issue too, but from a different angle: how policy moves like this get framed as “science wins,” when the real problem isn’t the dye — it’s the foods that deliver it.
The only way we get meaningful amounts of these dyes is by consuming huge quantities of ultraprocessed, high-sugar foods. At that point, dye-related cancer risk isn’t the biggest concern — it’s diabetes.
So, we are on the same page - I don't think this will have any positive impact on public health, even if headlines celebrate that we just eliminated a "known carcinogen."
I get the complexity of all of this, but we know that manufacturers are working within the restrictions and from the research in other countries - on products of which we have versions in the US. (Look up Froot Loops, as an example.) So, what is stopping us from directly asking them to help teach us (Let’s assume for now that Donald of Orange’s attempt to nearly burn every bridge is a temporary situation.) We don’t have to go through government. Back in my corporate days, when I found Canadian research or Canadian companies doing things beyond my current abilities, I just called them and asked them to teach me and share stuff. I never got a no, and I shared back what I had. Are we so far gone that we can’t make it personal again? Can’t we leave the governments and the CEO’s out of it and talk to peers instead?
Bobby's Froot Loops example is another one of his lazy lies. There's plenty of actual examples he could have made his point with - but the guy spouts lies so mindlessly that he can't even be bothered to try to be truthful. Abd who uses Froot Loops as any kind of "proof" for anything related to healthier food.
Canadian Fruit Loops uses a couple of different dyes, but similarly lengthy list of ingredients. Likewise UK, though maybe less chemical sounding;
Cereal flours (79%) (wheat, oat, maize), sugar, glucose syrup, salt, vegetable and fruit concentrate (carrot, blackcurrant), natural citrus flavouring with other natural flavourings, sunflower oil, colour (carotenes).
International cooperation is totally a thing in food science.
Food development techs absolutely share knowledge across borders, every single day. Most of the big colour suppliers and flavour houses are global entities and their technologies and scientists are second to none.
If the US companies want to phase out coal tar colours they can easily access the knowledge. But I argue they may lack the will because their consumers will hate it and their bottom line will suffer.
Thank you. I agree that companies shy away from changes they believe will cut into profits. However, I believe a proper application of marketing psychology and good old fashioned human factors analysis could mitigate the negative impact. Yes, for a price, but a minimal one in the grand scheme of things.
I referenced Froot Loops only because the version in Canada is different than that in the US in terms of the food coloring choices (and it’s easy enough to find comparative videos on YouTube.) Of course, neither version is a healthy choice and all of the nutrient numbers are the same. I should have picked another example.
Food safety expert here. Agree! This is a huge distraction, an easy way for the new regime to earn some brownie points on 'health' instead of trying to tackle the big public health issues.
But there's another aspect to this that no one seems to be talking about. (For background, I started my food science career as a product development tech working with not-at-all-healthy-foods)
Americans LOVE brightly coloured foods.
When I visited the US last year, I was blown away by all the food that appeared - to my eyes - overly coloured and artificial-looking. There was the most intense blue frosting on cakes for 4th July, super-bright candies, iridescent drinks. Even the appearance of cheese was disturbing to me.
I haven't seen food which looks like that anywhere else in the world.
If US consumers love and expect their food to be brightly coloured, then manufacturers who phase out synthetic colourants will put themselves at a disadvantage compared to manufacturers that don't.
And food manufacturers exist to make a profit. They are duty-bound to chase $$$ for their shareholders.
Food techs like me can overcome all the challenges related to shelf life, fading, pH and off-flavours if our employers need us to do that to increase profits. But big food companies will never, ever, knowingly launch a product that consumers don't love, because that is economic death.
If everyday Americans expect and enjoy bright coloured food, then that is what the big food companies will give them, for as long as they are allowed, voluntary 'rules' or not.
Doesn’t human health trump all of these issues, though? With the recent birth rate announcement from across the world, not just the west, we need to be thinking in drastic measures, don’t you agree?
Right, because only junk food has food dyes in it, right?? How about foods that aren't junk food that may have coloring added. Look around your fridge and pantry. You have many of those right now, I guarantee, unless you only eat food you grow yourself. Now imagine that had a limited budget and you already couldn't afford so-called "healthy" foods (many of which likely also had food dyes, by the way), and now you can't afford those cheaper foods that you were buying because the prices have gone up to do more expensive "all natural" dyes being used. What has changed in this scenario, aside from the higher prices for the same food?
Lastly, please cite your source(s) that "we are clearly" sicker as a nation.
There's pretty strong data about the health of the US nation, as measured by declining life expectancy. Take a look at the chart on this page (very highly respected data analysts), it's mental: https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low
Highly doubtful. Stop kidding yourself and own up to the fact that you may just be a little hypocritical with your remarks.
And I have Ray. That's why I know what you are saying is nonsense and ask you to cite the sources you are so confidently referring to. But, hey, nice aggressive reply bro! Maybe do YOUR own research, and perhaps some anger management on the side.
No one is talking about the allergies either.
Turmeric and beet are already being added to foods that you would never expect.
This is such an important discussion. And I agree that sure, it's not going to hurt anyone nutritionally to phase them out. But the economic impacts surely won't be zero. And at the end of the day, does this actually make a noticeable improvement in the overall health of Americans? Not really.
That said, on a personal note, my concern is this--"Seasonal variations in natural colorant crops create inconsistent supply, unlike the steady availability of synthetic dyes..." While what I'm about to say may seem dramatic to some...well, if you know, you know. People with sensory challenges--think autism, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, etc. Hell hath no fury like a change in a person's safe food. 😢
This is such a good point!!!
Any thought or comments from the regulatory process perspective? I would guess that an effort to remove existing FDA approvals would require a proposed rule, notice and comment period a final rule and an implementation period. If so, there is no way RFK’s effort can succeed in this timeframe. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
I love this! So well articulated. Is there a potential outcome that people will just…eat less highly processed food? If the prices go up drastically or the color is unappealing because the product is a Frankenstein concoction of grey and beige, would that drive consumers to ultimately cut out the food that we definitely know is not good for us? A pretty indirect and kind of problematic way of getting there, but does it start the ball rolling to an actual positive outcome? I imagine more of these bans or restrictions are coming.
Really appreciate this deep dive — especially the attention to manufacturing complexity.
I recently wrote about the Red Dye 3 issue too, but from a different angle: how policy moves like this get framed as “science wins,” when the real problem isn’t the dye — it’s the foods that deliver it.
The only way we get meaningful amounts of these dyes is by consuming huge quantities of ultraprocessed, high-sugar foods. At that point, dye-related cancer risk isn’t the biggest concern — it’s diabetes.
So, we are on the same page - I don't think this will have any positive impact on public health, even if headlines celebrate that we just eliminated a "known carcinogen."
https://www.statnews.com/2025/05/01/red-dye-no-3-ban-misses-real-threat-of-ultraprocessed-foods-high-sugar-content
I get the complexity of all of this, but we know that manufacturers are working within the restrictions and from the research in other countries - on products of which we have versions in the US. (Look up Froot Loops, as an example.) So, what is stopping us from directly asking them to help teach us (Let’s assume for now that Donald of Orange’s attempt to nearly burn every bridge is a temporary situation.) We don’t have to go through government. Back in my corporate days, when I found Canadian research or Canadian companies doing things beyond my current abilities, I just called them and asked them to teach me and share stuff. I never got a no, and I shared back what I had. Are we so far gone that we can’t make it personal again? Can’t we leave the governments and the CEO’s out of it and talk to peers instead?
Bobby's Froot Loops example is another one of his lazy lies. There's plenty of actual examples he could have made his point with - but the guy spouts lies so mindlessly that he can't even be bothered to try to be truthful. Abd who uses Froot Loops as any kind of "proof" for anything related to healthier food.
Canadian Fruit Loops uses a couple of different dyes, but similarly lengthy list of ingredients. Likewise UK, though maybe less chemical sounding;
Cereal flours (79%) (wheat, oat, maize), sugar, glucose syrup, salt, vegetable and fruit concentrate (carrot, blackcurrant), natural citrus flavouring with other natural flavourings, sunflower oil, colour (carotenes).
SO MUCH HEALTHIER!
https://www.kelloggs.co.uk/en_GB/products/fruit-loops.html
yeah, pretty sure Bobby got the Froot Loops angle from "Food Babe" *eye roll*
https://www.instagram.com/p/DBBf65XJvu5/
Great point!
International cooperation is totally a thing in food science.
Food development techs absolutely share knowledge across borders, every single day. Most of the big colour suppliers and flavour houses are global entities and their technologies and scientists are second to none.
If the US companies want to phase out coal tar colours they can easily access the knowledge. But I argue they may lack the will because their consumers will hate it and their bottom line will suffer.
Thank you. I agree that companies shy away from changes they believe will cut into profits. However, I believe a proper application of marketing psychology and good old fashioned human factors analysis could mitigate the negative impact. Yes, for a price, but a minimal one in the grand scheme of things.
I referenced Froot Loops only because the version in Canada is different than that in the US in terms of the food coloring choices (and it’s easy enough to find comparative videos on YouTube.) Of course, neither version is a healthy choice and all of the nutrient numbers are the same. I should have picked another example.
Food safety expert here. Agree! This is a huge distraction, an easy way for the new regime to earn some brownie points on 'health' instead of trying to tackle the big public health issues.
But there's another aspect to this that no one seems to be talking about. (For background, I started my food science career as a product development tech working with not-at-all-healthy-foods)
Americans LOVE brightly coloured foods.
When I visited the US last year, I was blown away by all the food that appeared - to my eyes - overly coloured and artificial-looking. There was the most intense blue frosting on cakes for 4th July, super-bright candies, iridescent drinks. Even the appearance of cheese was disturbing to me.
I haven't seen food which looks like that anywhere else in the world.
If US consumers love and expect their food to be brightly coloured, then manufacturers who phase out synthetic colourants will put themselves at a disadvantage compared to manufacturers that don't.
And food manufacturers exist to make a profit. They are duty-bound to chase $$$ for their shareholders.
Food techs like me can overcome all the challenges related to shelf life, fading, pH and off-flavours if our employers need us to do that to increase profits. But big food companies will never, ever, knowingly launch a product that consumers don't love, because that is economic death.
If everyday Americans expect and enjoy bright coloured food, then that is what the big food companies will give them, for as long as they are allowed, voluntary 'rules' or not.
Doesn’t human health trump all of these issues, though? With the recent birth rate announcement from across the world, not just the west, we need to be thinking in drastic measures, don’t you agree?
But we don't have human data showing any actual risk. There's a very big difference between hazard and risk.
What "recent birth rate announcement from across the world?"
Nothing new or surprising. The trends have been the trends. And beet juice concentrate instead of red dye #3 is going to affect birth rates.
Affordable healthcare would go much further towards "human health" than performative dye substitutions.
" ... we are clearly getting sicker as a nation, especially children."
By what metrics? Especially for children?
Specifics please.
Metrics. Measurements. You've offered nothing but an insult (which is my job). What does "sex hormones" even mean?
I'm aware of chronic disease rates, in general, with some specifics. It's part of what I do.
Provide prevalence or incidence rates over time for a condition or group of conditions. Or some performance status or functional assessments.
You regurgitated a meme. A talking point you don't understand.
And by the way - Closer to 75% of high school seniors can't qualify for the military - unchanged in years.
Right, because only junk food has food dyes in it, right?? How about foods that aren't junk food that may have coloring added. Look around your fridge and pantry. You have many of those right now, I guarantee, unless you only eat food you grow yourself. Now imagine that had a limited budget and you already couldn't afford so-called "healthy" foods (many of which likely also had food dyes, by the way), and now you can't afford those cheaper foods that you were buying because the prices have gone up to do more expensive "all natural" dyes being used. What has changed in this scenario, aside from the higher prices for the same food?
Lastly, please cite your source(s) that "we are clearly" sicker as a nation.
There's pretty strong data about the health of the US nation, as measured by declining life expectancy. Take a look at the chart on this page (very highly respected data analysts), it's mental: https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low
Highly doubtful. Stop kidding yourself and own up to the fact that you may just be a little hypocritical with your remarks.
And I have Ray. That's why I know what you are saying is nonsense and ask you to cite the sources you are so confidently referring to. But, hey, nice aggressive reply bro! Maybe do YOUR own research, and perhaps some anger management on the side.