The Truth About Synthetic Food Dyes

Synthetic food dyes like Red 40 and Yellow 5 are approved around the world. And focusing on them distracts from the real issues in our food system.

---

Hi - this newsletter is free to read, but a paid subscription helps to support my work. If you find it helpful, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Thanks for being here.

---

Last week, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary held a press conference announcing plans to phase out certain artificial food dyes in the United States.

Here’s what was actually said:

• The FDA will work with industry to voluntarily eliminate six synthetic dyes by the end of next year.

• It will start the process of banning two other dyes — Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — which are not really even used today. Citrus Red No. 2 is only allowed to color orange peels, not general food use. And Orange B was historically approved for use in sausage casings, but has been voluntarily abandoned by those companies and is essentially no longer used.

• And it’s asking companies to speed up the timeline for removing Red No. 3, a colorant banned under the Biden administration.

In other words, there’s no ban, there’s no regulation in place, and there’s no mandatory enforcement. The news conference was about performative politics and giving the illusion that something happened. When really they’re just asking and hoping that industry, the same companies routinely called "corrupt" by these very same voices, will voluntarily comply, while announcing a goal to ban two dyes that aren’t even meaningfully present in the food supply.

It was a press conference designed for headlines. Not a change in law.

Still, almost immediately, social media exploded with posts claiming that artificial food dyes had been "banned" in the U.S. or even that the ban was "effective today." Influencers flooded platforms with graphics listing dyes like Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and Blue 1 as now banned in the U.S., and falsely claiming they’ve long been banned in Europe and Canada.

It also appeared that 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.

None of this was true.

It looks like an orchestrated misinformation campaign meant to manipulate public mistrust, leverage scientific illiteracy, and distract from the real forces shaping our food system.

So let’s have an honest conversation and break it all down.

Why Are Artificial Food Dyes Used?

Before we talk about artificial dyes specifically, it’s important to understand why color additives are used in food at all.

Color matters.

Research shows that the color of food significantly shapes how we perceive its flavor, sweetness, freshness, and even quality, often before we even take a bite. Studies have found that the same beverage will taste sweeter or more flavorful to consumers simply because it’s dyed a deeper color, even when the formula hasn’t changed. Other studies show that dull or faded colors can make food seem less fresh, less flavorful, and even less safe. Without added color, many processed foods would appear brown, gray, or dull because heat processing, oxidation, and storage naturally degrade pigments over time. Adding color back in restores the visual appeal that consumers expect.

While natural colorants like beet juice, turmeric, and spirulina exist, they come with their own set of challenges that make them difficult to use consistently at a large scale. Natural dyes tend to be much less stable (they fade with exposure to light, heat, or changes in pH) and often produce colors that are more muted or uneven. Their appearance can vary significantly depending on growing conditions, harvest timing, and processing methods, making it hard for manufacturers to achieve the kind of product consistency that consumers demand. Natural dyes are also more expensive to produce and use, which would drive up food costs for consumers.

And natural does not automatically mean safer. Some natural colorants, like carmine (made from crushed cochineal insects), can cause serious allergic reactions. Others, like turmeric and certain botanical extracts, can trigger sensitivities in people with plant-based allergies. In contrast, synthetic dyes are typically more stable, more vibrant even at low concentrations, more consistent across batches, and less likely to trigger unexpected allergic responses. Though, of course, some individuals are sensitive to synthetic dyes as well.

At the end of the day, companies use artificial food dyes because they solve real manufacturing problems. Synthetic dyes create vivid, attractive colors that remain stable over a long shelf life. They ensure that every box of cereal or bag of candy looks the same every time. They help keep costs down. And they create products that meet consumer expectations.

You and I can have our own preferences and opinions about the need for our food to have bright colors, or even be colored at all. But if we’re going to have an honest conversation about food dyes, we have to recognize the full picture. Natural dyes have real limitations, synthetic dyes solve real problems, and much of the food landscape has been built around how important color is to our perception of taste, quality, and appeal.

How Are Artificial Food Dyes Synthesized?

As I mentioned in the intro, there seems to have been some kind of strategic MAHA communications meeting to start calling synthetic food dyes "petroleum dyes." Because over the last couple of weeks, that narrative has all of a sudden been everywhere. But let's talk about why that's so misleading, and how synthetic dyes are actually made. Because a lot of this fear relies on people not understanding basic chemistry.

Synthetic food dyes are created through controlled chemical reactions that produce specific, purified compounds. Some of the starting materials for these reactions come from petroleum sources, because petroleum provides an inexpensive and abundant supply of hydrocarbons, the basic chemical building blocks needed for synthesis.

Petroleum is a naturally occurring liquid found in the earth, formed over millions of years from the remains of ancient marine organisms. As this organic material was buried under layers of sediment and subjected to intense heat and pressure, it broke down into a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, which are molecules made up primarily of carbon and hydrogen. In other words, petroleum is an organic, natural material that’s been compressed by time, not some exotic industrial poison.

In fact, petroleum-derived hydrocarbons are used to synthesize a wide range of everyday products: medications, vitamins, textiles, plastics, and even parts of food packaging. The mere fact that a raw material came from petroleum tells you almost nothing about the safety or toxicity of the final product.

That said, it's worth noting that petroleum use does raise important environmental concerns, from the extraction process to its contribution to climate change. These are valid conversations we need to have about sustainability and the future of material sourcing.

But when it comes to the safety of synthetic dyes, the important point is that the final dye is not petroleum. It's a completely different, highly purified chemical compound. And anyone calling it “petroleum dye,” insinuating there is any petroleum in the final product, is spreading misleading information.

How Are Artificial Dyes Regulated in the U.S.?

In the U.S., the FDA regulates food dyes by setting Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs), which is the maximum amount considered safe to consume daily over a lifetime without any adverse effects.

Each synthetic dye has been tested for safety through toxicology studies examining carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, and other potential health effects.

To establish an ADI, the FDA identifies the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed in animal studies (called the NOAEL, or No Observed Adverse Effect Level), then applies a large safety margin, typically dividing that number by 100, to account for differences between animals and humans and among individuals. This results in a highly conservative estimate of what’s considered safe for daily human exposure.

Let’s give an example.

In the case of Red 40, animal studies identified a NOAEL of about 695 mg/kg of body weight per day in rats.

To establish a safe level for humans, the FDA applied a 100-fold safety factor:

• Dividing 695 mg/kg/day by 100 = 6.95

• Resulting in an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 7 mg/kg of body weight per day for humans.

To put this into perspective, let's use a typical 10 yo child that weighs around 32 kg (~70 pounds). At the established ADI, that child could safely consume up to 224 mg of Red 40 per day — every day for a lifetime — without expected adverse effects.

Now consider that a serving of something like bright red candies or a red-colored beverage typically contains around 10-20 mg of Red 40. That means the average 10 yo would have to consume the equivalent of more than 10 full servings of brightly dyed candy or beverages every single day — every day — just to even approach the established safe limit, which already includes a 100x safety buffer below the level where any adverse effects were observed in animal studies.

Realistically, if a child were eating that much candy or drinking that much soda every single day, the far greater health concerns would not be the artificial dye, but the excess sugar intake, displacement of nutrient-dense foods, increased risk of dental cavities, and overall poor diet quality.

But moving on.

Once artificial dyes are approved for use, they remain under ongoing review. Although those reviews don’t happen as often or as quickly as many of us would like.
But if we want more frequent, thorough re-evaluations of food additives, we have to adequately fund and staff the FDA.

When credible new evidence emerges showing a risk at current levels of use, the FDA has the authority to revoke approval. But that requires substantial scientific evidence, not just public pressure. The system isn’t perfect, and no regulatory process ever will be, but it’s not static either. It evolves as new data becomes available.

There are currently 9 synthetic dyes available for use in the U.S., but only 5 are used often.

1. FD&C Blue No. 1

2. FD&C Blue No. 2

3. FD&C Green No. 3 (rarely used in foods. May be found in some mint-flavored candies, cake decorations, or colored syrups)

4. FD&C Red No. 3 (Currently banned, but there is a current compliance period for manufacturers until 2027)

5. FD&C Red No. 40

6. FD&C Yellow No. 5

7. FD&C Yellow No. 6

8. Citrus Red No. 2 (only allowed to color orange peels, not general food use)

9. Orange B (historically approved for sausage casings but basically no longer in use)

Today, the major synthetic dyes used in the U.S., Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Blue 2, remain approved because current evidence supports their safety within the established limits.

And it’s not just the FDA that has reached that conclusion. International regulatory bodies, like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Health Canada, have reviewed the same evidence, and have also approved these dyes for use within established safety thresholds.

Does the EU Ban These Dyes?

You might have seen claims online that artificial dyes are banned in Canada and Europe. They’re not.

In fact, both the EFSA and Health Canada evaluate the safety of synthetic dyes, and both have concluded that the main dyes used in the U.S. - Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Blue 2 - are safe and have approved them for use in food.

In Europe:

EFSA uses ADIs, just like the FDA does. Their evaluations are based on the same kinds of toxicology studies, identifying a NOAEL in animals, applying a large safety margin, and setting a conservative estimate for human exposure.

Here’s a quick comparison for the main dyes:

As you can see, EFSA’s limits are not uniformly stricter. In fact, for Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and Blue 2, EFSA allows a higher ADI than the FDA.

There are slight differences, but the scientific risk assessments are fundamentally aligned and conclude that these dyes are considered safe for use within conservative limits.

In the EU, foods containing certain synthetic dyes must carry a warning label stating: "May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children."

But importantly, that label wasn’t based on overwhelming scientific consensus and was not a recommendation by EFSA. It was a decision based on political pressure following a 2007 study (the “Southampton study”) showing a possible, but not strongly replicated, link between a mix of dyes and hyperactivity in some children. News outlets took the study findings and sensationalized them, which led to the public demanding action.

In response to the public pressure, not a science-based recommendation, the European Parliament pushed for mandatory warning labels on products containing certain synthetic dyes. EFSA itself has consistently maintained that, based on the total body of evidence, these dyes are considered safe at approved intake levels.

I talk about this more here.

In Canada:

Health Canada approves the use of all 5 of these dyes in specific food categories at set maximum levels. They do not require a general warning label. And their safety assessments broadly align with FDA and EFSA evaluations.

So overall, the idea that the U.S. is allowing “toxic” food dyes in our food while other countries are banning them is simply not accurate. The five synthetic dyes used most often in the U.S., Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Blue 2 are all permitted for use in the EU, Canada, and the U.S. and evaluated by independent scientific bodies that have reached largely the same conclusions about their safety at approved levels.

And when you look closely at the numbers, the U.S. is actually more conservative than the EU in many cases. For several of the major synthetic dyes, the FDA’s ADI limits are lower than those set by the EFSA.

So Why Do Foods Look Different in Other Countries?

Because of market preference. Not bans.

In countries like Canada and across parts of Europe, consumer surveys consistently show that buyers prefer products without synthetic dyes. But in the U.S., brightly colored foods still dominate because American consumers have historically responded better to the vivid, hyper-saturated appearance.

Corporations are not in the business of making the most healthful food. They're in the business of making the food that sells. And that’s exactly what they're doing:

• In markets where natural dyes sell better, companies reformulate.

• In markets where synthetic dyes still boost sales, companies keep using them.

This isn’t about corruption or “evil scientists” in the U.S., it’s about deregulated capitalism. That’s the free market doing what the free market does, which ironically is the very system many synthetic food dye ban supporters normally defend.

You Already Have Options If You Want Them

One of the most common false narratives circulating right now is the idea that Americans are trapped into eating synthetic food dyes, while other countries have all the dye-free alternatives.

But that’s simply not true. We already have plenty of options in the U.S. if we want, and can afford, them.

If you want to avoid artificial dyes, you don't have to wait for a government ban.
You can do it today.

For example, grocery stores like Aldi, Trader Joe’s, and Whole Foods have banned artificial dyes from all of their private-label products. And even in conventional grocery stores, you’ll often find alternatives made with natural colorants if you look for them:

• Fruitful O’s instead of Froot Loops

• Giggles instead of Skittles

• Naturally colored candies, cereals, yogurts, and beverages — all already on the shelves

As mentioned, corporations respond to market demand. If more consumers chose naturally colored products, and stuck with those choices, companies would expand those offerings even further.

In fact, they already have when they’ve seen clear shifts in buying patterns.

And it’s important to be honest about who this conversation mostly involves.
Many of the loudest voices demanding bans on synthetic dyes, including many supporters of the MAHA movement, are middle- and upper-class consumers who already have access to a wide range of alternatives, and likely choose those alternatives already.

They have the resources, the store access, and the purchasing power to choose naturally colored products right now, without needing a federal mandate.

The difference isn’t that Europe and Canada magically regulate better ingredients into existence. It’s that corporations followed the money to meet consumer demand. The exact same dynamic could happen here if enough consumers consistently prioritized products without synthetic dyes.

But importantly, that’s not an issue with the science or our regulatory agencies. That’s just deregulated capitalism — a system that prioritizes profits above all else, and corporations operating within that system prioritizing the products that sell best and meet customer demand.

Why This Distraction Matters

Focusing all of our outrage on synthetic food dyes, which are used mostly in low-nutrient, ultra-processed foods, pulls attention away from the real structural forces harming public health in the United States.

While we’re all busy fighting over whether to use Red 40 or beet juice in our ultraprocessed food:

• Funding for programs that bring fresh, local foods into schools is being cut

• Nutrition assistance for low-income families is being slashed

• Corporate regulations protecting our air, water, and soil, the very foundations of a healthful food system, are being rolled back

And nothing is being done to address the evidence-based strategies that could actually improve our food environment.

Artificial dyes aren’t the biggest threat to our food environment. Unregulated corporate power is. And this administration is consistently handing corporations more power (and money) while we are arguing about food dyes.

The saddest part is that these conversations could have been honest. We could have talked about real concerns, real trade-offs, and real ways to improve the food environment in the U.S. But instead, we were given a carefully orchestrated narrative that relied on anti-science rhetoric, emotional manipulation, and a deliberate distortion of reality.

We — the people who actually want to see improvements in our food supply and public health — deserve better than this kind of deception. If we truly want a healthier food environment, it will take a lot more than banning dyes. It will take fighting for systemic changes, including better corporate regulation, stronger public health programs, better food access, and a market that values people over profits.

The truth is, synthetic food dyes like Red 40, Yellow 5 & 6 and Blue 1 & 2 have been thoroughly evaluated around the world, including the FDA, EFSA, and Health Canada, and deemed safe for use within established limits. We should absolutely continue to study them and reassess safety, but they are not the health crisis some would like you to believe. The outrage was built on a distortion, not on science.

And when it comes to the real problems facing our food system, synthetic food dyes aren’t even close to the biggest issue.