By LINDA BOYLE

On April 22, 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary announced their plan to  phase out  eight  harmful petroleum-based synthetic dyes in foods.  The dyes up for removal are found in foods such as Pop-Tarts, hot dog casings, Takis tortilla chips, and Mountain Dew soda. 

To assist with this transition, the FDA will be authorizing four natural color alternatives and will accelerate the review of others. 

One of those synthetic dyes is Red No. 3 which is already slated to be out of our food by 2027-2028. Bear in mind, this dye was removed from cosmetics because of its potential cancer risk nearly 35 years ago. Somehow, it was more important to protect our faces than it was to protect our children.

The FDA plans to pressure food companies to speed up that elimination process.  The Red No. 3 dye is found in cakes, cupcakes, candy and frosting and “has been linked to cancer and behavioral issues,” according to the FDA.  

Dr. Makary discussed studies such as one done by The Lancet that “raised concerns about the ‘correlation’ between petroleum-based synthetic dyes and ailments such as hyperactivity, obesity, diabetes, cancer, gastrointestinal problems, allergies and more.” 

California, so often maligned for doing the wrong thing, is actually doing what’s right and leading the charge. Last year, California banned six dyes from use in public school lunches.  

“Evidence shows that synthetic food dyes are associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in some children,” said California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Director Dr. Lauren Zeise. “With increasing numbers of U.S. children diagnosed with behavioral disorders, this assessment can inform efforts to protect children from exposures that may exacerbate behavioral problems.”

Many of these dyes have already been banned in European countries.  Why have the dyes not been banned in the US?  What’s the difference between the two approaches?   

The European Union and other countries follow what is called the “precautionary principle” meaning the manufacturer must prove the additive is safe prior to gaining approval.  

In the US, the government uses the GRAS principle which is “generally recognized as safe.”  This GRAS principle was written into the 1958 Amendment to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. We “assume an additive is safe unless there is solid proof it is not.”

Who determines if the additive is safe? There is a loophole in the law. The food companies can set up their own panels and self-certify without any independent review from the FDA. Many additives on today’s market were added to our food through this backdoor process.  

This shows how food additives are banned in Europe but still widely used in the United States. The sad part is we may be eating unsafe and unhealthy food for decades before finding out they may cause cancer or other health problems.  

A Forbes article by Jesse Pines, who is an expert on healthcare innovation, gives three good examples:  

Red Dye No. 3: A vibrant synthetic dye used in gummies, candies and snack cakes; Red Dye No. 3 has been shown to cause thyroid tumors in lab rats.  Although banned in European food and in US cosmetics, it’s still found in a variety of products on American grocery shelves. The FDA plans to phase it out by 2027, a timeline that may be accelerated given the recent announcement.

Potassium Bromate: This is a chemical that’s used to enhance dough elasticity in breads and buns. Yet, potassium bromate is also classified as a possible human carcinogen. It’s banned in the EU, UK, Canada and Japan but remains common in US baked goods and in major fast-food chains.

Titanium Dioxide: This a whitening agent found in products like ultra-processed baked products and cheese. Titanium dioxide is banned in Europe due to concerns about DNA damage. Yet it’s still legal in the US.

Meanwhile, approximately 99% of new chemicals added to the US food supply between 2000 and 2021 came through the GRAS process rather than through a thorough FDA review, according to Environmental Working Group. And the panels used to evaluate these new additives were funded by the same companies who wanted to add them to our food. Can you say, “conflict of interest”?

The European Union in 2010 began to systematically review all food chemicals allowed in Europe to decide if those additives were still safe.  

We, on the other hand, are just allowing food companies to hire their own panels and tell us the food additives are safe.

 I saw a television segment during which a previous FDA official was discussing what RFK Jr. is trying to do to make our food supply safer. He stated he thought we shouldn’t be banning additives until we can prove they harm us. 

Maybe I am too pragmatic.  If the European Union determined these additives were harmful to us and our children, why not just follow its lead? Especially since we are talking about behavioral problems in our children and potential for cancer for us all.  

Oh wait! The food companies are big business, and they have funds to share with those in Congress whose support they need.   

Is it more important to keep our food supply safe or bow to the demands of the food industry?

Is it more important to protect our children from colorful food dyes which may cause irreparable harm?

Always follow the money to find the truth.  

Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance/Alaskans 4 Personal Freedom.