MAHA wants to make our food healthy again — but federal cuts are hobbling some existing efforts

Yahoo

01-05-2025

Skittles, Mountain Dew and Fruit Loops shine a little brighter on supermarket shelves in the U.S. than they do in some other countries.
That's because artificial food dyes like Red 40 and Yellow 5 used in many snacks and sugary foods are banned in certain countries like Denmark, France and Switzerland — something secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pledged to do by the end of 2026. Last week, Kennedy said he had reached an 'understanding' with companies in the food industry to phase out these petroleum-based dyes and others like Blue No. 1, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B used in everything from ice cream and candy to packaged soup.
While the decision to remove artificial food dyes is typically something people across the political spectrum can get on board with, some say it's missing the forest for the trees to single out substances that do not have a clear link to chronic illness while existing programs providing people with healthy foods are slashed in federal budget cuts.
'I don't think you'll find any nutritionist who is in favor of food dyes, but I just don't think that it's the panacea that it's being purported to be,' said Lindsey Smith Taillie, an associate professor of nutrition at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health.
A 2021 report from the state of California linked artificial food dyes to hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral effects in children. However, this has been overblown on social media to suggest that artificial dyes cause ADHD in children, which has not been proven. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deems them safe to consume at the levels found in available foods, although some of these dyes do carry a warning label in certain European countries that state they 'may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.'
Regulatory decisions from the FDA are often based on legal requirements like the Delaney Clause, which requires the agency to ban additives that cause cancer in animals or humans, said Jessica Steier, a public health expert at Unbiased Science. The agency banned Red No. 3 in Jan. 2025, under President Biden, because it was linked to thyroid cancer in high doses in rats, but that dose was 210 times higher than the typical human exposure, she explained. Additionally, the FDA concluded that the way that Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats 'does not occur in humans.'
'The key issue here is distinguishing between hazard and harm,' Steier told Salon in an email. 'While certain food dyes might demonstrate hazardous potential in laboratory settings with extremely high doses, this doesn't necessarily translate to harmful effects in humans at the levels typically consumed.'
Nevertheless, the MAHA movement has singled out items like food dyes and seed oils in the push to "Make America Healthy Again." Most people support increasing access to a healthy food supply and banning food dyes is considered a step in that direction for many. Still, some say more could be done to support initiatives that deliver healthy food to Americans.
'While removing specific ingredients may create the illusion of meaningful action, it potentially diverts resources from more impactful health initiatives and promotes a simplistic 'natural equals healthy' narrative that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny,' Steier said.
In fact, several decisions made in the first 100 days of the Trump administration have hobbled existing efforts to increase access to healthy foods. Last month, Dr. Mati Hlatshwayo-Davis received a notice that a program delivering food and nutrition education to seniors and children in partnership with the YMCA in St. Loui, Missouri would be cut, she said. This program provided meals for low-income families in the region, where Hlatshwayo-Davis serves as the city's Director of Health.These types of programs "reach the very heart of what public health is supposed to be, which is about community and preventative care,' Hlatshwayo-Davis told Salon in a phone interview. 'To me, some of these programs speak directly to what I understand the Make America Healthy Again [movement] and the priorities of the administration to be.'
A program run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that delivered fresh food from local farmers to schools and food banks also shuttered last month. The agency said the decision to cut the $1 billion program was made in order to "return to long-term, fiscally responsible initiatives."
Recently, a team of workers from the USDA and FDA wrote the national 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans that comes out every five years, using the latest scientific evidence to shape food policy. Yet it is unclear how closely Kennedy will follow the guidelines because they were the first to apply a 'health equity lens' to the review process and health equity initiatives have been gutted by the Trump administration.
During a talk on nutrition at an elementary school in Virginia last month, Kennedy said: 'There's a 453-page document that looks like it was written by the food processing industry. And we're going to come up with a document that is simple, that lets people know, with great clarity, what kind of foods their children need to eat, what kind of foods they can eat.'
Much of the research in nutrition is funded by industry, which has been criticized for biasing the results. Take trans fats, which were banned in the U.S. in 2018. Advocacy efforts to increase awareness of the health risks of trans fats date back to the '70s, and it took the FDA decades to take action and phase them out of the food supply, in part because of pushback from industry.
Yet science — fueled by consumer advocacy efforts — was ultimately what led to the FDA's decision to ban trans fats, similar to Red No. 3.
'It's a scenario where both things can be true,' Taillie told Salon in a phone interview. 'It doesn't mean that we should throw out scientific evidence altogether, and my concern is that they might use that as a rationale to just completely abandon the scientific process instead of reforming it.'
Included in the 10,000 jobs cut from the HHS were also officials who monitored the food supply for contaminants at the FDA, which in the massive overhaul of federal agencies is estimated to be losing 20% of its workforce.
These cuts have largely been made in the name of government efficiency, but the process of switching to natural dyes could be complex and time-consuming. For one, transitioning to natural dyes like turmeric or beet-based ones to replace Yellow 5 and Red 40 often requires companies to make significant changes to their production processes. And government agencies have historically been slow-moving, too. It took the FDA years, for example, to evaluate the evidence and ultimately decide to remove Red No. 3 from foods.
It's also unclear how willing industries will be to comply, although several companies, including the International Dairy Foods Association, The Consumer Brands Association (which includes brands like Pepsi and Kraft) and W.K. Kellogg have said they will take steps to remove artificial dyes from their products.
Still, research from the U.S. and other countries shows that voluntary initiatives rarely have a meaningful impact on the food supply, Taillie said. One review of 20 voluntary actions from the food industry in low and middle-income countries concluded that 'voluntary actions often aim to protect industry interests rather than improve public health.'
'This needs to be mandatory in order for there to be notable differences,' Taillie said. 'I'm skeptical of this having an impact, especially because no members of the food industry were even at that press conference [where Kennedy announced it].'
If companies go through that effort, they'll want to also be sure that consumers are actually willing to pay for the product with the natural-based dyes instead. In 2016, Trix decided to start using radishes, purple carrots and turmeric to flavor its breakfast cereal, but consumers complained about its lack of color and the company decided to switch back to artificial dyes the following year.
Consumer attitudes have changed since then, and buyers do seem more interested in natural colorants, said Renee Leber, the food science and technical services manager at the Institute of Food Technologists. Still, the main concern from buyers is how much food costs, she explained. Although FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said switching to natural dyes would not increase price, other evidence suggests natural dyes can be more costly to produce.
'Consumers right now are looking at price as their primary factor when they purchase foods,' Leber said. 'If some of the foods that they're purchasing are going to go up in price, that's going to be a big consideration for consumers.'
Many states have already taken action to restrict or regulate the use of artificial food dyes. The California legislature was the first state to ban these dyes in 2024. West Virginia followed suit earlier this year, and similar bills have been introduced in Utah, Virginia and Arizona.
Still, many of the foods that these dyes are in are ultra-processed foods, which have been linked to chronic illness like diabetes, obesity and heart disease. Yet replacing the dyes will not necessarily make people eat less of these products.
'I don't think it would necessarily decrease our overall consumption of ultra-processed foods, which is really the much bigger thing that most nutritionists and public health professionals worry about,' Taillie said.
Meanwhile, evidence consistently shows that ensuring access to healthy lunches for children and making food affordable can reduce the risk for chronic disease, Taillie said. So can increasing access to green spaces and physical activity.
Yet in part due to the proposed tariffs from the Trump Administration, food prices are expected to rise 2.8%, including 4% for fresh produce. Meanwhile, the administration has also cut programs designed to plant trees and improve community resilience against climate change.
'Most people want to eat healthy,' Taillie said. 'It's not really a matter of desire, it's more about reducing the barriers to doing that. You need a comprehensive package of actions in order to move the needle on dietary quality.'