I am greatly in favor of removing synthetic dyes from foods, and applaud RFK Jr’s enthusiasm for doing this.

The Mic Drop (according to Bakery & Snacks): ““If you want to eat petroleum, do it at home. But don’t feed it to our children.”

But this is not a ban.  Not even close.

Here’s the official announcement.

The FDA is taking the following actions:

1. Establishing a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives.
2. Initiating the process to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings—Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B—within the coming months.
3. Working with industry to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes—FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2—from the food supply by the end of next year.
4. Authorizing four new natural color additives in the coming weeks, while also accelerating the review and approval of others.
5. Partnering with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct comprehensive research on how food additives impact children’s health and development.
6. Requesting food companies to remove FD&C Red No. 3 sooner than the 2027-2028 deadline previously required.

“Working with industry?”  “Requesting food companies?”  That’s all?

Food companies have never done anything voluntarily that they didn’t have to.  No company wants to go first and risk losing market share.

Food companies need a firm, mandated level playing field.  Despite the rhetoric, this does not do that.

For one thing, food companies were not part of the announcement and deny agreeing to it.  As Bloomberg reported, Food Industry Says There’s No Agreement With US Health Agency to Cut Dyes,

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his agency and the Food and Drug Administration had an “understanding” with the industry about their removal on a voluntary basis.

Yet multiple people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said there was no agreement…When asked Tuesday why industry groups said there was no agreement on dyes, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said “no one said there was an agreement.” He called it “an understanding.”

Food companies can—and should—get rid of these dyes.

Here’s what’s at stake for them.

The box at the left comes from France (2024); the cereal is colored with vegetable dyes.

The box at the right comes from Canada (2025); the cereal is colored with artificial dyes.

Kids greatly prefer brightly colored cereals; they think they taste better.  The companies that tried getting rid of the dyes lost sales.  That won’t do it for them.

I hope food companies comply with RFK Jr’s understanding.  Will they?  We will see.

Resources [and thoughts] on all this

My video interview with CNN about this and my cereal box collection

The HHS press conference

FDA Commissioner Marty Makery’s statement [He manages to sound sensible throughout].

Stat News coverage:  “Food companies agree to phase out synthetic dyes, handing MAHA a victory.” [Hmm.  Not sure about that].

Food companies have voluntarily consented to getting rid of the artificial dyes, Makary said, but there is currently no formal agreement or ban. “I believe in love, and let’s start in a friendly way and see if we can do this without any statutory or regulatory changes,” he said.

Fox News coverage of “RFK bans petroleum-based food dyes”  The Tweet (X) says “We use chemicals in Fruit Loops (sic) that are banned in virtually every country in the world,” says @SecKennedy” [Not exactly.  The UK requires a warning label.  I bought that box in Canada a couple of months ago.]

RFK Jr also says: “If you look at the ingredients for Fruit Loops 20 years ago it was very very different than it is today.”  [Nope.  I’ve got a complete set of Froot Loop box facsimilies since the first year they were introduced—1963.  They had all those dyes from the beginning; they just were listed as certified or artificial colors until they had to be fully disclosed in 1993].

Calley Means on how these dyes are poisoning children and call on Democrats to work with MAHA [Low salaries combined with job instability may be a hard sell].

Vani Hari (the Food Babe) reports on her speech at the HHS press conference and elebrates [She’s been trying to get dyes out of foods for years]

My inbox was flooded last week with messages alerting me to this study.  Thanks to Matthew Kadey, Matthew Stasiewicz, Christopher Gardner, and others who preferred anonymity.

The study: Askow, Andrew T.; Barnes, Takeshi M.; Zupancic, Zan; Deutz, Max T.; Paulussen, Kevin J.M.; McKenna, Colleen F.; Salvador, Amadeo F.; Ulanov, Alexander V.; Paluska, Scott A.; Willard, Jared W.; Petruzzello, Steven J.; Burd, Nicholas A. Impact of Vegan Diets on Resistance Exercise-Mediated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis in Healthy Young Males and Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise ():10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725, April 4, 2025. | DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725

Conclusions: “Our results demonstrated that the anabolic action of animal vs. vegan dietary patterns are similar. Moreover, there is no regulatory influence of distribution between the two dietary patterns on the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young adults.”

Conflict of Interest and Funding Source: “This study was funded by The Beef Checkoff…Beef Checkoff sponsor was only involved in financial support of the project, without involvement in design, data collection, and analysis, nor interpretation and dissemination of the report.”

Comment: The idea here was that meat protein would promote muscle synthesis better than vegetable protein, especially at relatively low levels of intake. Hence, the Beef Checkoff’s interest.  Not only did this sponsored study come to what must have been an unexpected conclusion, but the University of Illinois issued a press release announcing it:  Omnivorous? Vegan? Makes no difference to muscle building after weight training, study finds.  High marks to the researchers and to the university press office.  This is one instance where you can be sure the Beef Checkoff really did stay out of the study design and interpretation.  Exceptions that prove the rule do happen. Sometimes.  I wish they happened more often.

Here is one of the most wrong-headed reports I’ve read in a long time. Cutting School Food Subsidies

The US Department of Agriculture runs a large array of farm and food subsidy programs. The school lunch and breakfast programs are two of the largest, which together with related school food programs will cost federal taxpayers an estimated $35 billion in 2025. Thirty million children, about 58 percent of students in public schools, receive school food benefits. The original goal of the school lunch and breakfast programs was to tackle hunger, but the main nutrition problem for children today is not inadequate calories but excessive consumption of unhealthy foods and obesity. Hence, subsidizing school food is an outdated use of federal dollars. Congress should repeal school food programs to reduce budget deficits and hand power back to the states. State and local governments should decide what sort of school food policies to adopt for their own residents.

Oh great.

I have a completely different take on this.

School meals are demonstrably healthier that a lot of food offered to kids these days.  The biggest problem with school meals is that they don’t serve enough children.  During the pandemic, when school meals were universal, kids and their families did better.

If the problem with school meals is too much unhealty food, the remedy is straightforward: make the meals healthier and give schools enough money to do that.

Fortunately, some states require universal school meals.  They all should do that.

The Cato report should be understood for what it is: an attempt to cut budget for social programs.

Apparently, dog chews made in China may be causing werewolf syndrome in dogs in the UK.

A total of 10 different Barkoo and Chrisco branded chews have been linked to werewolf syndrome by teh FSA [Food Standards Agency] and EU.  They have best before dates ranging from Decembrer 2025 to June 2027.

Werewolf syndrome? 

The term werewolf syndrome has gained traction online as shorthand for a cluster of symptoms reported in dogs who appear to have consumed certain chew products. While not an official medical diagnosis, the term groups together sudden neurological symptoms such as:

• Sudden, unprovoked aggression or fearfulness.

• Excessive barking, crying or howling.

• Hyperactivity or restlessness.

• Destructive tendencies, such as chewing furniture.

Physical symptoms such as epileptic-style seizures, vomiting, diarrhoea and lethargy have also been observed in some cases.

The cause?  Unknown (mycotoxins?).

No cases have been reported from the U.S.

What to do?  Don’t feed those chews to dogs.

I’ve been collecting items on new and emerging food products.  Enjoy!

• Cow-less casein protein ‘first’ creates full cheese spectrum: A full spectrum of ‘cheeses’ can be made without cows, following the development of a casein that can self-assemble into micelles, the foundation for stretchy, protein-rich cheese alternatives…. Read more
• Are watermelon seeds the next breakthrough in plant-based milk?  Watermelon seed-based non-dairy beverage Milkish won “fan favorite” in the Fancy Face-Off pitch at the Winter Fancy Food Show – but can it win over retailers and shoppers?… Watch now
• Cell-cultured mouse “mousse” petfood headed for commercial release.  BioCraft Pet Nutrition has partnered with Prefera Petfood to commercialise a hypoallergenic, nutritionally complete cat food made almost entirely from cell-cultured mouse…. Read more 
• Cultivated dinosaur meat hits the market in food tech first: Hitting a major food tech milestone, scientists have developed and launched a range of products made from cultivated dinosaur meat… Read more
• Seaweed has an ocean of potential, but headwinds remain: Investment and climate are barriers for the seaweed to innovate and achieve all it can achieve… Read more
• Green Queen Better Meat secures U.S. patent for turning potato waste into mycoprotein The Better Meat Co has secured its sixth U.S. patent for a process that uses potato-processing waste to grow high-protein, high-fiber mycelium, offering a sustainable, nutrient-rich alternative to conventional meat. Read More

And then,

• How Coca-Cola is using Minute Maid to push into alcohol: The soda giant’s Red Tree Beverages subsidiary is making a bet that its vodka lemonade can help it gain a stronger foothold in booze.

It’s a brave new food world out there.  I wonder how cell-cultured dinosaur meat tastes…

I was riveted by this report in the Wall Street Journal: USDA Is Fast-Tracking Requests to Yank Soda From Food-Stamps Program.

The Agriculture Department is fast-tracking state requests to yank soda and candy from food-stamp programs. Arkansas and Indiana are among the first in line.

Both states Tuesday said they were seeking clearance from the USDA to implement the changes, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her agency would move “very, very quickly” to approve them.

“That’s exactly the vision of making America healthy again,” Rollins said in an interview. “I am 100% certain that these changes will be nothing but positive for those underserved communities that are food challenged.”

I’m also riveted by the American Beverage Association statement that provoked her remarks

It’s disappointing that Governor Sanders and Secretary Rollins are choosing to be the food police rather than take truly meaningful steps to lift people off SNAP with good-paying jobs. Nearly 80 percent of families on SNAP work, they just don’t make enough to make ends meet. Low-income working families were promised a new, better era and not to be left behind again. Instead, they’re being denigrated and treated like second-class citizens.

WHAT?  The American Beverage Association is also sounding like me when it comes to root causes of poverty in America?  I never thought I would hear anything like this from that organization.

OK, so what’s going on here.

Let’s start from the beginning.  When Congress was considering authorizing food stamps in 1964, a few foods were excluded from benefits, soft drinks among them.  But lobbying from soft drink companies and retailers (who make money from soda purchases on food stamps) quashed that idea.

About ten years ago, a presidential commission on SNAP (the successor to food stamps), on which I served, recommended pilot projects to test the effectiveness and recipient responses of adding sugary beverages to the small list of foods that cannot be purchased using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards.  Several states and cities petitioned the USDA for “waivers” that would allow them to run pilot projects.  In all cases, the USDA rejected the proposals.

The Trump Administration USDA is reconsidering.

This is not a simple issue.

PRO: 

Public health: Sodas contain sugars but nothing else of nutritional value (empty calories), and are well documented to derange metabolism, increase calorie intake, and to be associated with obesity and chronic disease.

Political: SNAP recipients spend too much money on sodas; taxpayers should not support unhealthful food choices.  SNAP recipients could continue to buy sodas with their own money, just not EBT cards.

CON

Anti-hunger: Removing sodas from SNAP constitutes government interference with personal choice, is condescending, and is unfair to people who have few ways to treat themselves.

Political: Taking sodas out of SNAP is a cover for the Republican agenda to cut SNAP benefits.

Comment

It looks like the USDA will approve state requests.  I have been in favor of pilot projects for a long time, on public health grounds.  But—I want to see careful research studies not only looking at changes is purchases among SNAP recipients, but also at how they perceive the new requirements.

More on this

• USDA’s Snap Rule Waiver home page
• Arkansas governor’s press release
• Idaho governor’s press release
• Indiana governor’s press release
• Indiana to restrict food stamps, put work requirements on Medicaid

Christopher Gardner writes me that the next time I need an example of an industry-funded study, I should take a look at this one.  Happy to.

The Study: A Mediterranean-Style Diet with Lean Beef Lowers Blood Pressure and Improves Vascular Function: Secondary Outcomes from a Randomized Crossover Trial.  Jennifer A Fleming, Kristina S Petersen, kup63@psu.edu, Penny M Kris-Etherton, David J Baer. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 9, Issue 4, 104573.

Objectives: “The aim was to evaluate the effects of a MED diet incorporating 0.5 oz./d (MED0.5), 2.5 oz./d (MED2.5) and 5.5 oz./d (MED5.5) of lean beef compared with an Average American diet (AAD) on vascular health [brachial and central blood pressure, pulse wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index].”

Methods: “In random sequence order, participants consumed each test diet for 4 wk. Vascular outcomes were assessed at baseline and the end of each diet period.”

Results:  “PWV was lower following MED0.5…and MED2.5… compared with the AAD; PWV was nominally lower after the MED5.5 compared with the AAD…Central systolic blood pressure was lower following the MED0.5…and MED2.5…compared with the AAD…Brachial systolic and diastolic pressure were lower following all 3 MED diets compared with the AAD (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Compared with an AAD, MED diets containing 0.5 and 2.5 oz./d of lean beef improved brachial and central systolic and diastolic blood pressure and arterial stiffness. Our findings suggest that a MED diet with ≤5.5 oz./d of lean beef does not adversely affect vascular function.

Funding: “This trial was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff…Financial supporters had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest: JAF received travel funds from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association for giving presentations on this research. PMK-E and DJB received funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association for the research reported in this article. KSP has received grants from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to conduct other research projects. KSP has also received honoraria from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association for consulting work unrelated to the research presented in this paper.

Comment:  Professor Gardner noted that the AAD diet contained 3,500 mg sodium/day, whereas all three of the Mediterranean/beef diets had lower sodium (<2,300 mg/day).  Could reduced sodium have anything to do with the reduced blood pressure observed on the two diets containing lower amounts of beef (Med 0.5 and Med 2.5)?  The authors, alas do not discuss this point.  This makes this study appear to have been designed to demonstrate that eating beef does not adversely affect blood pressure.  Research on the effects of industry funding demonstrate that funders do not need to have a role in the design, conduct, etc of a study to exert influence.  Consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, funding recipients want to please their sponsors.  Studies of the effect of diet on blood pressure need to control for sodium intake.

Stuart Gillespie.  Food Fight: From Plunder and Profit to People and the Planet.  Canongate, 2025.

I wrote a blurb for this book:

From his years of experience working in international nutrition, Gillespie has on-the-ground knowledge of why and how global food systems lead to widespread hunger, obesity, and environmental damage, and what needs to be done to make those systems healthier for all.  He makes it clear that this food fight is crucial to take on.

I particularly like his discussion of what is needed to transform food systems:

‘Food system transformation’ has become the mother of all development clichés in this decade.  The real goal of many who invoke it is not real transformation—it’s more about fiddling on the fringe.  To truly overhaul the food system, we need to see a major shift in the structure and dynamic of power.  Unsurprisingly, those in power now don’t really want such a shift, whatever they proclaim in conferences, interviews, and annual reports…What’s really being discussed in these conferences and reports is transition, not transformation.

On the need for a real food movement:

Linking people working separately on obesity, undernutrition or the climate crisis is one of the big challenges in creating concerted local-to-global action.  No transformative social movement yet exists that addresses malnutrition.  It’s about time.

Indeed, yes.