Is there actually going to be a ban on food dyes in the US?

When performative policy and 'concepts of a plan' collide

Apr 25, 2025

During a news conference on April 22, 2025, RFK Jr. announced plans to eliminate all synthetic, petroleum-based food dyes. But in this ‘concepts of a plan’ era, their initial headlines don’t exactly live up to reality.

Reality Checks: What’s Actually Happening

Despite the hype on social media, the ‘ban’ on food dyes isn’t actually a ban. What seems like a concrete headline falls apart on close inspection of the press release. Here’s the summary of what’s actually going on:

The FDA is going to make a voluntary request to manufacturers to eliminate the additives from their products by next year.
Only 2 food colorings will actually be banned: Citrus Red No 2 and Orange B. These dyes are already rarely in use, limited to just orange peels, hot dogs or sausage casings.
The FDA will be authorizing 4 color additive alternatives in the near future.
Manufacturers have legitimate concerns there’s not enough time to make necessary switches, and the impacts of rushing this will increase costs of already rising food prices, and potentially alter the texture and quality of their products.
Thanks for reading Morning Coffee Thoughts! My posts are public so feel free to share it.
Share

RFK’s Unhealthy Obsession With Neurodivergents

We know RFK Jr has aimed his sights on neurodivergent individuals and autistics. He has shown clear disdain for our existence, especially for those with increased support needs, and sees us as a symptom of everything currently going wrong in the world, something to be scrubbed, “cured”, like a stain in your clothes. In my personal observations, much of his dislike of food colorings seems come less from the concern for our health and safety, and more from the harm it causes to our economy when neurodivergent children and their parents cannot adequately participate as socially acceptable, industrious worker bees.

That being said, there are some legitimate questions around food dyes and additives being a part of our daily diets. Why are we eating them? What is their purpose? Are they actually safe? What are the standards the FDA uses to assess safety, and what products are they in?

Until this previous announcement, the FDA stood by its regulations and guidelines, which evaluate how much dye can be in foods, what foods they can be in, and strict label instructions to help consumers identify color additives in food labels.

For the most part, companies play along with these standards, because fines are annoying and public outrage and safety recalls aren’t always good for a brand’s image. Don’t get me wrong- there are companies that legitimately want to follow the guidelines. But increasingly vocal media personalities, celebrities and scientists with large platforms say it’s not good enough. These voices have continued pushing for natural products clear of any synthetic chemicals, making claims that it’s “healthier.” But who is right?

As always, the debate around banning food colors lies somewhere between legitimate concern and click-baity noise. Food policy has always been slow to adapt swiftly to the change in public opinion. (Look at My Plate and the very legitimate concerns around dairy and milk products.) That frustration with bureaucracy isn’t going to resolve itself overnight for a public that just wants foods to be affordable and not kill them. But I’m not sure fixating on food dyes as a major cause of dietary concern is going to improve our nutritional health that much. But let’s look. What are some of the actual pros and cons of eliminating these synthetic food dyes from our diets?

Pros: For the Ban

Claims that food dyes increase hyperactivity, increase harmful behaviors, or prevent children from sleeping are widely spread on the internet as “irrefutable proof” artificial food dyes need to be eliminated. Restriction of these dyes does benefit some neurodivergent individuals.
Some research claims that specific dyes may increase risks of people ingesting cancer causing substances through potential contamination.
Critics of food dyes have long argued that any food dye, natural or not, provides no nutritional value and does not contribute to the overall palatability or flavor of the food.
The change in food dyes could force manufacturers and industries to adapt and innovate, creating new products we have yet to see in the market.

Cons: Against the Ban

A ban on these colors may shift texture and appearance, which may not be appealing to consumers. Neurodivergents especially may find their safe foods altered in ways that make the foods unappealing.
Increased costs to consumers. Manufacturers will have to reformulate their foods, meaning time, energy and effort to recreating products with similar colors and textures. Natural colorants may be more expensive to produce, meaning an increase in price for consumers.
Natural colorants are still additives. How we procure them, their environmental impacts on the planet, and long term health affects of these additives will need to be evaluated.
Doesn’t address long-standing health inequalities. Framing food additives and colorants as “bad” makes for more food rules for the average person to have to abide by. It also fails to address co-occurring factors that could influence increased behaviors, like added sugars, time of day, overstimulation or any other number of environmental, social and ecological factors. The largest conclusion that most researchers have come to on food dyes is that we need more studies, not less.

My Thoughts

Of course none of these proposed changes, save for 2 very specific and rarely used food dyes, are actually mandatory. Voluntary compliance only works when groups are on board. And, to no one’s surprise, there were multiple groups caught off guard by this announcement.

Opponents of this voluntary elimination have valid concerns that HHS and the FDA have underestimated the cost and time this push will take to eliminate these food colorings from the market. They worry that misinformation and fear-mongering, rather than science, is leading the charge for these bans. (I’m not sure they’re wrong.)

The push for more natural, rather than synthetic food dyes just screams performative action and a set up for grifters like RFK Jr and Dr. Oz to push their products and supplements. It doesn’t sit right with me. In a past life, I helped create programing for helping people eat healthier on a budget. Buying more expensive products to be “healthy” isn’t a solution when you’re a fixed income and fresh produce already feels like a stretch.

I am not saying that we don’t need to look at food dyes as a cause for concern. We absolutely should. What I am saying is that RFK Jr is holding this food dye ban up as if it is a major win for addressing public health, while simultaneously gutting some of the very foundational public health initiatives that have kept Americans healthier for decades. And it makes me worry that the United States is going to move further towards a model that de-prioritizes community health over individualistic “survival of the fittest” policy, which is not good for anyone, especially those who cannot afford it.

If you like hearing me scream in to the void, I’d appreciate a follow from my fellow “radicals” who believe we all should have access to food, shelter and health care. See you next week.

Previously, on Morning Coffee Thoughts

While I am over here screaming about food dyes and the need for us to step back and look at nuance, the Trump DOGE has been actively dismantling many of the public health initiatives designed to keep us safe.

In case you missed it:

Over $4.7 billion in grants were frozen that would help address hunger in our schools and communities. These grants are considered “multipliers”, meaning every dollar given helps generate even more for the local and state communities. The Trump regime is costing this country money.
RFK points to environmental toxins as a potential cause of Autism, but he’s allowed DOGE to fire many of the programs that helped monitor and prevent environmental disasters.
- The CDC’s lead contamination division is another casualty of DOGE- leaving States on their own.

Morning Coffee Thoughts