RFK Jr. Wants To Ban Food Dyes. Would That Really Improve Public Health?
Such a regulation would override consumer choice for scientifically shaky reasons.
In a recent closed-door meeting with the CEOs of several major food companies—including PepsiCo, General Mills, Smucker's, Kraft Heinz, and Kellogg's—Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. implored the industry to eliminate artificial food dyes from their products. The secretary "expressed the strong desire and urgent priority of the administration to remove" artificial coloring from the food supply, said Melissa Hockstad, president and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, in a readout reported by Food Fix.
In 2023, California became the first state in the country to ban Red 3 in foods, along with three other additives. A year later, the Golden State barred another six food dyes from being served in the state's public school lunches.
Kennedy and other supporters of these bans cite studies that suggest synthetic dyes can potentially be cancerous. Other reports have linked these additives to hyperactivity in some children.
But critics argue these studies don't reflect real-world consumption levels. "The cancer-causing 'links' found in studies are based on dangerously high doses given to lab rats in amounts no human would ever consume, even if they ate a whole box of cereal or pack of hot dogs," says Bill Wirtz, a senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center. "Banning food dyes is a performative regulatory action. All dyes currently used by manufacturers do not pose a known health risk to consumers."
Joseph Borzelleca, a pharmacologist and toxicologist at Virginia Commonwealth University, has also argued that the dye does not pose a cancer risk to human beings. That's notable because it was Borzelleca's 1987 study on food dyes and lab rats that prompted the FDA to ban Red 3 in cosmetics. "I have no problem with my family—my kids and grandkids—consuming Red 3. I stand by the conclusions in my paper that this is not a problem for humans," he told KFF Health News.
California's Red 3 ban in 2023 created "a complicated map of where food producers can sell their products," says Wirtz. This regulatory patchwork makes it "very difficult for smaller businesses there to reach consumers and survive long term. Larger corporations can afford the compliance costs and employ enough people to reformulate, repackage, and re-organize their supply chains."
A national ban would mean there isn't a patchwork anymore—but by moving in the wrong direction. Besides the scientific shakiness of such a regulation, such a rule would override consumer choice and might even give eaters a false sense of security: If Americans come to believe that dye-free foods are inherently healthy, they might consume more processed foods rather than less. "Moderation in all things is still the best message," says Wirtz, "rather than performative regulatory crackdowns."
