4/29/30: Food Dyes: Fearmongering & Distraction (Innocent Until Proven Guilty? or Better Safe than Sorry?)
Because EVERYBODY Eats
Food Dyes: Just a Distraction? or is there More to This Story?
This is a slightly longer post than normal and is a single topic - food dyes - and not the typical Grocery Cart compilation newsletter. If you choose to interpret this post as being “for” artificial or synthetic dyes, it’s not, it is FOR #factsnotfears about this conversation and a consideration of nuances. This won’t be about safety issues for artificial/synthetic food dyes, but there will be some links here to posts with that information. Just providing you with some knowledge and perspective and things to consider.
Please consider becoming a PAID monthly or annual subscriber to support this newsletter.
OR
If you like this article, you can “Buy A Coffee” (it’s not a real coffee ☕it’s just a one-time tip.
👉🏽But first, let’s talk about hazard vs risk
“The Dose Makes the Poison” or “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” - The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long operated on a “risk-based” assessment for ingredients, additives, chemicals and drugs…‘innocent until proven guilty”.
“Better Safe than Sorry” - Meanwhile, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) uses a hazard-based or precautionary principle, i.e. if there is the likelihood that something may cause harm it will be regulated or banned to avoid any hazard.
The codification of hazard and its impact on the hazard versus risk controversy - PMC
To put this simply, countries that use a hazard-based approach are likely to eliminate or take steps to minimize anything that may cause harm, while a country that employs a risk-based approach will determine at what point there is risk to a human and establish limits for use or consumption to avoid any hazard.
“…At the heart of the differing approaches of FDA and EFSA is the concept of hazard versus risk. The European Union tends to emphasize the potential hazard of an additive, focusing on the possibility that it could cause harm. It often leads to strict regulations or outright bans on certain additives if there is any uncertainty or dispute about their safety.
In contrast, the United States, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), focuses on risk. The FDA assesses the likelihood that a hazard will actually cause harm under specific conditions of use. This means that an additive might be allowed in the U.S. until there is clear evidence that it poses a significant risk to consumers.”
🚫Claim: Artificial/Synthetic/Petroleum-based Dyes have been banned
Fact: Banned is a strong word —- that’s NOT what’s happening
Susan Mayne, Professor/Food & Nutrition Scientist/Regulatory Consulting. Former Dir. FDA CFSAN (Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition) - “THIS IS NOT A BAN, THERE WOULD BE NO ENFORCEMENT IF COMPANIES DID NOT COMPLY.” (This was indeed an all-caps response to an e-mail query.)
“…Officials merely asked food companies to voluntarily stop using the six more common synthetic food dyes, stopping short of an outright ban. Furthermore, officials hope to eliminate those dyes from America's food supply by the end of 2026, not immediately….”
More on this from Helena Bottemiller Evich in Food Fix: The RFK Jr. food dye crackdown marks a totally new era in food policy - Food Fix
💁🏽♂️BTW
Words Matter
Have you noticed that over time the language on this topic has gone from “artificial colors in food” to “synthetic dyes” and finally, in a stroke of fearmongering brilliance, “petroleum-based dyes” …yeah, that was very intentional and strategic.
from Jessica Knurick, PhD, RDN: “…communications teams across these groups aligned on a new fear-based talking point of calling synthetic dyes "petroleum dyes," deliberately using misleading language to provoke fear and confusion.”
From Dr. Andrea Love with more information on sources, cost and unintended consequences: No, you're not eating gasoline. The "petroleum food dye" narrative is disinformation.
🌍Claim: These dyes are already banned in Europe.
Fact: No, they aren’t banned, they may have different names, be required to come with a warning label or only be allowed in certain foods/beverages.
From Dr. Andrea Love: Are food dyes used in the US banned in other countries? No, not really.
Approved additives and E numbers | Food Standards Agency
👍🏽Claim: Natural food colorings are "better” for our health
Fact: Meh…remains to be seen.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that these food colorings can be in a variety of foods and beverages so take a look at the chart below, and then you decide if simply removing a synthetic/artificial food color will somehow make these foods better/healthier or will somehow make the health of Americans magically improve.
Do you really think changing the color is going to make a soda or a candy a “better for you” option? What about the amount of sugar in sodas, candy or desserts? What about fat or sodium amounts? P.S. Who knew that the food dyes could be in PICKLES?
🤔Unintended Consequences
Here are some questions and things to think about and ask.
Quantity: How much of the natural product will it take to create the same color? How many acres of farmland and where will they be grown (in what country)? What are limitations of growing or importing (tariffs)?
Stability & Consistency: How stable and consistent are natural food colors compared to synthetic colors? Will certain products have less appeal? Is that a bad thing or a good thing? Will this result in food waste? (FYI, General Mills removed artificial/synthetic colors from their cereals in 2016 and replaced them with natural colors, but when sales started to slip and consumers started to complain in 2017 they added the artificial/synthetic colors back in.)
Allergenicity: What are potential allergen concerns? Will there be more issues for individuals with food allergies?
Cost: What is the cost difference between using synthetic color and a naturally derived color? Is it more? Less? Significant or insignificant? How will this cost difference affect the price of different items?
Butterfly Pea Flower For example, Butterfly Pea Flower extract is often used to create a blue color and has been approved since 2021 by the FDA to replace FD & C Blue 1. “Blue No. 1”, as it is often called, is typically found in drink mixes and sports drinks. In order to get this blue color, the Butterfly Pea Flower plant has to be grown (typically in Southeast Asia), harvested, the color needs to be extracted (using water or alcohol), and then the resulting liquid needs to be concentrated. At some point this needs to be imported. Natural Blue Food Coloring: Your Complete Guide to FD&C Blue 1 Alternatives and Brilliant Blue Substitutes
More from Susan Mayne on unintended consequences:
“While I understand the appeal of removing something that "may" impact children's health, regulators must also consider potential unintended consequences. a few to consider. some natural colorants are already FDA-approved, but the administration is seeking to dramatically increase the usage of the ones already approved, while committing to bring new ones to market. Compared to the synthetic dyes that have been used for decades, there will be much less known about the newer colorants, and they will not be certified by FDA for purity. Natural does not equal safer, and the Food Allergy Research and Education group (FARE) has already noted they are concerned about increased potential for allergic reactions. because these colorants may be less intense in color, more may need to be used to color a food, raising the potential for higher levels of contaminants such as lead. They may have shorter shelf-lives, potentially impacting food waste. also, they are not just derived from plants/flowers but also insects, mold, and algae. This is not to imply those sources are any less safe, but to be clear these are not all coming from fruits and vegetables. The natural colors are more costly, so greater food costs could be passed on to consumers. Also, for a dietitian audience, I so wish we were working to add more fruits and vegetables to foods…rather than just pigments from fruit and vegetables and other sources. Also, if industry is focused on reformulating colors, will industry lose momentum on reformulation for sodium reduction? - if that were to happen it would be a public health loss.”
↘️↙️Bottom Line: There’s so much going on these days in the U.S government that potentially impacts health: unjustified firing of federal workers, attempts to block funds for nutrition research, removal of language around DEI, inaccurate claims and statements about autism, tariffs affecting food prices; proposed elimination of various programs affecting public health (e.g. Head Start). It may be “easy” to look away from those things and focus on food dyes…but will removing them really ‘make Americans healthy again’ or does it just serve as a convenient distraction to more serious issues with more serious health consequences? Don’t take your attention off what’s really happening when it comes to health in the U.S.
