logo
Mmm, that looks yummy! The colors we see make a difference in the food we eat

Mmm, that looks yummy! The colors we see make a difference in the food we eat

Independent05-02-2025

You know you've said it. We all have. 'Mmm, that looks so delicious — I want to try some!' That's because when it comes to what we eat, it's not just a matter of taste.
What foods and drinks look like — the colors we see before the first morsels or sips hit our tastebuds — have mattered to people for millennia. And nowhere has that been more blatant than the American food palate, where the visual spectrum we choose from includes not only the primary colors but artificial ones that nature couldn't even dream up.
For well over a century, food manufacturers in the United States have used synthetic dyes in their products as part of their production and marketing efforts. Often, it's been in hopes of making a mass-produced food look as fresh and natural as possible, reminiscent of the raw ingredients used in its production. In other cases, it's been about making an item look interesting or distinctive from competitors, like candies or desserts in an electric blue or neon pink. Think 'blue raspberry Slurpee" or 'Flamin' Hot Cheetos.'
It hasn't been without controversy. Over the decades, there have been pushback and government regulation over just HOW food and drink have been colored, most recently with the decision last month from the federal Food and Drug Administration to ban red dye No. 3 from foods and oral-ingested drugs because of concerns over a possible cancer risk. But no one's calling for food NOT to be colorful.
That's because there's no escaping the importance of what we see when it comes to what we eat, says Devina Wadhera, faculty associate at the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts of Arizona State University.
'Your first sensory contact, if your eyes are open, is going to be sight,' she says. 'That's going to be the first judgment we're going to make.'
Visual appeal is pivotal
The food manufacturers of the late 19th century knew they had to get the visual appeal right. It was part of their marketing, as a shorthand to encourage brand recognition, to make consumers feel comfortable about quality and overcome worries (or realities) about spoilage as food production became industrialized, says Ai Hisano, author of 'Visualizing Taste: How Business Changed the Look of What You Eat.'
Synthetic dyes helped overcome problems like foods losing color in the production process and helped make foods look more 'natural,' she says. Then, over time, dyes were deployed to make foods look 'fun' and appealing to audiences like young children. (That doesn't mean manufacturers didn't sometimes use colorants that could even be deadly — hence the reason there's regulation.)
She pointed to the mid-20th century example of cake mixes, which reduced the amount of effort required to bake a cake at home because most of the ingredients were already included. Food companies began promoting colorful icing for the cakes as a way women baking at home 'could kind of present their personality even though they are making a pre-mixed cake,' Hisano says.
We become conditioned to coloring
The connections we make between colors and foods are learned, Wadhera says. 'Throughout our lives, we make associations which mean things. Cake is associated with birthdays. Ice cream is associated with parties and good times, so everything is associative learning. Color is one of those things that we have this tendency to learn about different flavor pairings.'
She gave the example of the spate of products like chips and other snacks that are marketed as having an extra kick. Often, 'they're super red because (companies are) trying to say, 'Hey, this is going to be spicy' because they're trying to get to this sensation or perception that this is going to be really spicy — buy it.'
The connections that we make between color and taste can also change according to the context, says Charles Spence, professor of experimental psychology at the University of Oxford. A blue liquid in a plastic cup in a bathroom? Could be minty mouthwash. The exact same color liquid, in a bar, held in a rocks glass? Could be bitter gin. Different cultures around the world also have different color associations, he says, although it's fairly constant across geographies that the more vivid a color is, the more intense people assume the flavor will be.
It can even extend past the food itself to the colors involved in its presentation, Wadhera says, pointing to research showing people eating different amounts or preferring certain foods linked to the colors of the dishes used to serve them. And much of the time, she says, people aren't necessarily aware they're doing it.
'There's a lot of things with color that you can manipulate and affect judgments,' she says. 'You don't think of it, though. ... We make automatic judgments on the food and we don't even realize it.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Urgent recall of American sweets 'unsafe to eat and not compliant with UK law'
Urgent recall of American sweets 'unsafe to eat and not compliant with UK law'

Metro

time2 hours ago

  • Metro

Urgent recall of American sweets 'unsafe to eat and not compliant with UK law'

People are being asked to stop buying a range of American sweets that should never have been on shop shelves to begin with. Businesses have been asked to recall fruit-flavoured hard candies and gummies by Jolly Rancher, which is owned by chocolate giant Hershey's. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) said they contain mineral oil hydrocarbons, which come from raw crude oil and other fossil fuels. These oils – Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons, (MOAH) and Mineral Oil Saturated Hydrocarbons, (MOSH) – make the products 'unsafe to eat and not compliant with UK laws'. The recalled products include: Jolly Rancher Hard Candy Jolly Rancher 'Misfits' Gummies Jolly Rancher Hard Candy Fruity 2 in 1 Jolly Ranchers Berry Gummies The FSA said today: 'For consumers, don't buy them, and if you've eaten these products, there should be no immediate cause for concern, as food safety risk is low, but don't eat any more. 'These products contain mineral oil, which isn't allowed in food in the UK and may pose a food safety risk if consumed regularly over a sustained period of time.' No illnesses have been reported. Mineral oil hydrocarbons sneak into food through a variety of means, such as via animal feed additives or machinery lubricants, according to the European Food Safety Authority. MOAH can act as genotoxic carcinogens – substances that cause cell mutations, damage DNA and potentially increase the risk of cancer if enough is consumed over a long period. More Trending MOSH has been known to accumulate in the liver, causing inflammation. Food safety officials said that Hershey's has been working to remove the sweets from the UK market, only for businesses to keep importing them. So the agency has issued a 'food alert for action', a notice that asks the authorities to help get an item off the shelves for good. Police and local authorities have been asked to 'immediately' contact businesses selling the sweets and get them to recall them. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Popular Aldi snack recalled in 13 US states due to 'life-threatening' allergen MORE: Coca-Cola recalls Topo Chico mineral water over fears of bacteria MORE: Urgent recall for 15,000 pounds of beef and meat jerky over allergy fears

RFK Jr reveals his plan for vaccine committee after he fired entire panel sparking ‘anti-vaxxers' concern
RFK Jr reveals his plan for vaccine committee after he fired entire panel sparking ‘anti-vaxxers' concern

The Independent

time6 hours ago

  • The Independent

RFK Jr reveals his plan for vaccine committee after he fired entire panel sparking ‘anti-vaxxers' concern

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has revealed that he doesn't plan on placing 'anti-vaxxers' on a federal vaccine policy advisory committee after removing all its previous members, sparking concerns about who he may appoint next. 'None of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers,' Kennedy wrote in a long post on X. 'They will be highly credentialed physicians and scientists who will make extremely consequential public health determinations by applying evidence- based decision-making with objectivity and common sense.' The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Kennedy said he would announce the new members of the panel in the coming days and that they will be in place before the committee's next meeting, set for June 25. The X post came about a day after he removed all 17 members of the committee, signaling a dramatic change in American vaccine policy. Kennedy, who ran as a Democrat and then as an independent in the 2024 presidential election before dropping out and endorsing Trump, has become known as an anti-vaccine activist. He has made a number of false claims about the damage vaccines can do, such as the measles shot being connected to autism. The secretary claimed that removing all members of the panel was necessary to restore trust in vaccines as well as the CDC. Kennedy attempted to argue on Tuesday night that there had been 'historical corruption' at the committee. 'The most outrageous example of ACIP's malevolent malpractice has been its stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children,' Kennedy claimed. The secretary tried to connect childhood vaccines that 'modify the immune system' to an 'epidemic of autoimmune diseases' and suggested that vaccine makers don't test their vaccines for safety because they're not part of placebo-controlled trials. 'No one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing,' said Kennedy. Former CDC Director Dr. Tomas Frieden told PBS News, 'We're already seeing a decreased immunization rate.' 'When Secretary Kennedy says he wants to restore trust, the fact is that his activities over many years have been one of the main reasons there are questions about vaccines,' he added. Frieden argued that lower vaccination rates will lead to struggles to control measles, which he noted was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. 'We're now having more cases and more deaths than we have had in many years, and whooping cough, which is increasing,' he said. The former CDC director told PBS News that Kennedy is 'undermining and stopping a process that has been transparent, effective, and fact-based, and replacing it with we don't know what, but based on untrue statements, misinformation, and, frankly, fringe beliefs.'

Vaccine sceptic RFK Jr disbands government advisory committee on immunisations
Vaccine sceptic RFK Jr disbands government advisory committee on immunisations

Telegraph

timea day ago

  • Telegraph

Vaccine sceptic RFK Jr disbands government advisory committee on immunisations

Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US Health Secretary and a prominent vaccine sceptic, has dismissed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations. In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Mr Kennedy claimed that 'retiring' the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) was necessary to help rebuild trust in vaccines and ensure 'unbiased' health recommendations. 'The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,' he said, adding that he wanted to 'ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible'. The move – which some committee members found out about via the media – has been widely criticised by public health experts and scientists, who point to Mr Kennedy's long track record questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines, sometimes based on dubious science. 'We have just watched politics bury science,' said Dr Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. 'If you look at [Kennedy's] accusation that he's doing this because of growing problems with vaccine trust – well, that's kind of like an arsonist complaining that so many houses are on fire,' Dr Osterholm said. 'He's the one that's been seeding these doubts for the last decade.' Since he became the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr Kennedy has taken a number of controversial decisions related to vaccines – including from bypassing ACIP to issue new Covid vaccine guidance, to stopping adverts for seasonal influenza shots and cancelling a $766 million contract with Moderna to develop a bird flu jab for humans. Now, Mr Kennedy has claimed the ACIP needs a complete overhaul because members have too many conflicts of interest, and are immersed 'in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy'. But his move appears to directly contradict promises given during his confirmation hearings. Bill Cassidy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana who is also a doctor, said he only voted for the appointment after Mr Kennedy committed to maintain ACIP 'without changes'. 'Of course, now the fear is that the Acip will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Mr Cassidy wrote on X on Monday. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' In a statement, Dr Bruce A Scott, executive director of the American Public Health Association, added that Mr Kennedy's move would help drive an increase in vaccine-preventable diseases, at a time when vaccine coverage is declining across America. 'Today's action to remove the 17 sitting members of ACIP undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives,' Dr Scott said. 'Rapid destruction' of critical oversight The committee is attached to the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and included 17 experts – including epidemiologists, infectious disease doctors, vaccine experts and paediatricians – who typically serve overlapping four-year terms. Eight of the members were appointed in January 2025. But it has been in flux since Mr Kennedy assumed office, with its first meeting delayed by the department, before the Health Secretary announced new Covid-19 recommendations in a video posted on social media – unilaterally changing the guidance without an ACIP consultation. Still, retiring all panellists – and deleting a webpage listing the members – has come as a shock to some. Dr Noel Brewer, a professor in public health at the University of North Carolina who was a member of the ACIP, told the Telegraph his removal was 'very unexpected,' given he was meant to serve for three more years. He added that he heard about it only when 'received a copy of the Wall Street Journal article from a journalist', and later received an email confirming it at 5:48pm. 'The most immediate impact of this action is to destroy trust among healthcare providers in ACIP,' said Dr Brewer, a behavioural scientist who specialises in research about why people do or don't get vaccinated. 'The top priority right now is to restore trust in ACIP recommendations. If that is not possible, then it is time for medical organisations to create an alternative vaccine advisory committee for the nation.' On this, there has already been some progress. Earlier this year, CIDRAP launched the Vaccine Integrity Project, which aims to facilitate conversations and offer advice about US vaccine policy – almost like a version of ACIP that's not aligned to the government. 'When I started the vaccine integrity project, there were a lot of doubters that anything of major consequence would happen… [especially after] Kennedy promised in his Senate hearings that he would not take vaccines away from anyone,' said Dr Osterholm. 'Well, look at all this change. 'We are watching the very rapid destruction of critically important vaccine evaluation oversight efforts of the US government, both at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and the CDC. These are committees that have performed marvellously well.' He added: 'It's terribly significant. The real victims are the public, specifically young children, who are going to face a very different world of vaccine preventable diseases than even a decade ago… I don't know what happens next, but it doesn't bode well.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store