For the past 50 years, American children have lived in toxic soups of synthetic chemicals, according to Dr. Marty McCurry, Director of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA chief said this while announcing that some food colorings present in popular American foods will soon be eliminated.
The head of the agency overseeing FDA, Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., agrees to McCurry's assessment of the harm caused by the above chemicals. Kennedy said in an FDA statement:
For too long, some food producers have fed American oil-based chemicals without knowledge or consent. These toxic compounds do not provide nutritional benefits and pose realistic and measurable risks to the health and development of children. The era is coming to an end. We are beginning to restore the science of the gold standard, apply common sense, and regain public trust. And we do that by working with the industry to remove these toxic dyes from the food our families eat every day.
What's been phased out?
The FDA plans to work with companies to eliminate eight chemical food colouring, while allowing new natural colour additives. The FDA will revoke approval for synthetic food coloured citrus red No. 2 and orange B in the coming months, with six synthetic dyes (FD&C green 3, FD&C red 40, FD&C yellow No. 5, FD&C yellow 6, FD&C blue No. 1, FD&C blue No. 2).
The ban affects some common foods, snacks and drinks. Red number 3 is located on Maraschino cherry and fruit cocktails. Red No. 40 is located in Kool-Aid, Starburst, and Nyquil. Mountain Dew and Twinkies have a number 5, while Airheads, Jolly Ranchers and Lucky Charms have a yellow No. 6. M&M and Takis include another Blue Chemical, Blue No. 2, for Skittles and Blueberry Pop-Tarts.
Food companies add dyes for several reasons. It is often used to improve visual presentations. Relatedly, many snacks rely on very specific colors as part of a brand, such as Starburst, Skittle, M&MS, etc. Cost is also a factor. Synthetic dyes are cheaper, more stable and last longer than natural alternatives such as beet juice and turmeric. Dyes are also used to hide defects in raw materials.
The problem is that there is a suspicion that chemicals can cause harm. The chemicals in question are associated with allergic reactions, DNA damage and inflammation, neurobehavioral problems, and potential carcinogenic risks. Animal studies have provided links to kidney, bladder and brain tumors. “They obviously cause behavioral problems for some people, but they are never all children and are linked to cancer and other diseases in animal research,” said Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University.
Kennedy's long-standing vision
Kennedy and McCurry want businesses to see natural alternatives like beets, watermelons and carrot juice. The government is trying to play its part in supporting it. The FDA is quickly tracking reviews of calcium phosphate, Gardière extract blue, Gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extracts, and other natural alternatives to synthetic food dyes. The FDA has also announced that it will “issue guidance and take steps to provide regulatory flexibility to the industry.”
The move is part of Kennedy's long-standing mission to wash away American diets of synthetic chemicals that are nutritious but not many health risks. He has consistently attacked the role of big food in the American chronic disease outbreak.
Kennedy has not written down words about how serious he believes the country's health crisis is. He said that when the American experiment fails, the main reason is that our country is “who is sicker at more speeds, depressed, more infertile, and undermining national security, while bankrupting national budgets with healthcare costs.” He emphasizes that the collective health of Americans today is far worse than the health of people half a century ago. Obesity, diabetes, ADHD, autism, cancer – everything has increased significantly over the past few decades.
How do big foods react?
So far, the government's plan to eliminate these dyes has not relied on official regulations. Kennedy said at a press conference on April 22 that he announced “there is no agreement, there is an understanding.” McCurry seconds. He said, “You get more bees with honey than fire. I believe in love. Let's start in a friendly way.”
According to HHS Chiefs, companies are ready to play the ball:
We get food companies and fast food companies that call us every day. I think the industry is ready to change. They also have children. Most of them really want to have a healthier America. They want clear guidelines and want to know what they can and cannot do. And we're going to give it to them.
However, the Association of International Manufacturers, the leading additive industry, is not as enthusiastic as Kennedy would like. They told Newsweek that the proposed timeline for the end of 2026 “ignoring scientific evidence and underestimating the complexity of food production.” They also claim that there is no adequate replacement for replacement. The National Confectionery Association reiterated this concern, saying the industry “needs time to find a safe and viable alternative.”
Is the government trampling?
The evidence overwhelmingly supports Kennedy's claim that American food is plagued by unnatural, toxic ingredients. Moreover, these views are not exclusive to Kennedy and McCurry, but are held by millions of Americans who have been concerned for decades.
But is this a problem for the federal government?
The motivation here certainly seems good intentions, but what happens if a future HHS secretary goes a step further and decides that Americans should not eat meat or drink soda? After all, there is evidence to suggest that they are harmful too (specifically processed meat). There are many powerful people who will lobby for the ban on these items.
The US Constitution gives zero permission to the existence of federal agencies that decide what people should eat. And despite the misunderstanding of past court decisions, it is hard to imagine that the authors of the Constitution are federal government jobs that interfere with our diet.
Maybe there's a better, more constitutional approach. People in California, Virginia and West Virginia are already taking steps to protect themselves from toxic food dyes, and 20 other states are considering the next lawsuit, according to reports. In West Virginia, Gov. Patrick Morrissey signed the law on March 24th, banning foods containing most artificial food dyes and two preservatives. Apparently, West Virginians didn't think the designation was reassuring. The new law also bans dyed foods in school lunches starting in August.
Perhaps a better solution would be to abolish health and human services and all institutions to that extent, and have individual nations decide what is permitted on the grocery shelves.
