No Time to Dye

Gunnar Lee • June 11, 2025

Candies, cereals and chips. These classic US household snacks and breakfasts, commonly associated with vibrant colors, will soon undergo massive change. In a press conference on April 22, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that they, along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), would be introducing measures to remove eight artificial food dyes from the US food supply. Raising concerns of the dyes’ potential harmful effect on children, officials have pledged to cooperate with food companies to replace them with natural dyes by 2026. The specific dyes listed are petroleum-based, meaning they are extracted from crude oil, which is formed over millions of years from decaying animals and plants under specific conditions. Two uncommonly used dyes, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, will be banned while FDA works with food companies to gradually phase out the other six. Three of the eight dyes, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6, make up 90% of all US food dye consumption (MSNBC). There were already movements to ban artificial dyes at a state level: California became the first state to pass legislation blocking schools from distributing lunches using synthetic dyes in October, followed by Utah and Arizona (The Washington Post).

In the last days of the Biden Administration in January, the FDA banned the use of Red Dye No. 3, a substance linked to cancer in male lab rats. This time, there is debate within the scientific world over the danger the eight dyes targeted in RFK’s campaign pose to human or animal health (ABC News). Although some studies have confirmed that food dyes can lead to hyperactivity in children, ultimately contributing to ADHD, nutrition experts opposed to the studies have claimed that they were conducted unscientifically. Scientists skeptical of RFK’s plan have noted how it is easier to predict and determine the effect that artificial dyes have on people than it is for natural dyes, which have thousands of compounds. Some have also questioned why the HHS and FDA are focusing on phasing out food dyes, which are relatively harmless to children compared to other food items (The Washington Post). Sophomore Jaden Tarng acknowledges the soundness of the government’s decision.

“Although I think more research is required, I am not [opposed] to banning artificial food dyes,” Tarng said. “Based on the data [released] so far, it is difficult to [ascertain] the extent to which artificial coloring has [dire effects] on human health. Even if the [risks of the dyes] are relatively low [the US] should not allow them to be circulated. The possibility of harming children is not worth keeping snacks and food colorful.”

The push to remove synthetic dyes from the US food supply is part of RFK Jr.’s pledge to “Make America Healthy Again”. Since his confirmation as Secretary in February, RFK’s “crusade” has created great controversy in the medical community. He has expressed interest in reforming the FDA to make food standards stricter and launching a $20 million ad campaign encouraging healthier habits (NBC News). A prominent anti-vaxxer for over two decades, he adopted an anti-vaccine stance at the outbreak of a wave of measles in Texas although he later released statements urging people to get vaccinated. RFK Jr.’s primary focus as HHS Secretary is on autism; RFK has repeatedly supported the belief that there is a link between vaccination and autism, ADHD and other neurodevelopmental conditions (The Washington Post). His decision to ban the eight synthetic dyes was partially informed by his aim to prevent the spread of the “epidemic of autism”. Junior Isaac Kim expounds his evaluation of RFK’s career thus far.

“RFK Jr. should not be trusted in general,” Kim said. “He has no expertise in the [medical] field [and] is one of the worst members of the new administration. His entertaining of conspiracy theories destroy any credibility he has. I am especially opposed to his suggestion that people with autism cannot function [as members of society]; announcing this in front of congress is infantilizing at best and dehumanizing at most.”