Lucky Charms, Gatorade, Cheetos, and 3 more foods that will get hit by RFK Jr.'s food dye ban
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made food dyes one of his department's top priorities.
'We are going to get rid of the dyes, and then, one by one, we're going to get rid of every ingredient and additive in food that we can legally address,' Kennedy said at a news conference this week.
The FDA, which falls under the HHS's portfolio, announced this week that it plans to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings — Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — within the coming months.
And the FDA said it'll work with the 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.
Here are some of your favorite foods that will be affected by the dye's removal.
Lucky Charms (GIS) may be magically delicious, but the cereal contains four of the targeted dyes: Red 40, Blue 1, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6.
Don Thushara Galbadage, a professor of public and global health at Texas Christian University told Quartz that the move to rid the food supply of synthetic food dyes is a 'win for public health' and step in the right direction.
'Many of these dyes, including Red 40 and Yellow 5, have been flagged for potential links to hyperactivity in children and oxidative stress in the brain,' Galbadage said. 'Eliminating these additives will help make our food supply safer, particularly for vulnerable populations like children.'
There's no word yet on what will replace the Yellow 6 dyes that are in Cheetos (PEP), but Galbadage said implementation won't be simple.
'Reformulating these products without losing visual appeal or taste will be both costly and time-consuming,' he said. 'This is why a phased approach to banning these dyes is both practical and necessary.'
This thirst quencher will still quench your thirst — just with a little less color.
This favorite candy has a rainbow of dyes, including Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Blue 2.
Vanessa Rissetto, nutritionist and CEO of Culina Health, said the FDA's announcement to phase artificial dyes out of the U.S. food supply could be a big win for American nutrition.
'Recognizing the high level of carcinogens and preservatives in foods filling our grocery stores is a step in the right direction and the first of many necessary changes that need to be made,' Rissetto said to Quartz.
According to the ingredient label, Twinkies contains yellow and blue dyes.
But even without the dyes, Rissetto said Americans need to make better nutritional choices.
'Americans could benefit from steering away from processed foods and focusing on incorporating whole foods into their diet. Ultra-processed foods — including dyes, additives, and artificial sweeteners — lack the benefits found in whole foods like prebiotics and probiotics,' she said. 'Factoring in a diet that includes whole foods can help your body feel overall healthier, both physically and mentally.'
This popular sherbet brand contains yellow and blue dye. But that's not uncommon in frozen treats.
'Synthetic dyes are deeply embedded in the food industry, present in foods from cereals and candies to sports drinks and snack foods,' Galbadage said.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
21 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. Here's How to Do It Right
Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: 1. Link the highly siloed health care and government data we already have The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. 2. Create capacity for researchers to securely link to other valuable data In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. 3. Invest in data-research infrastructure Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: 1. Strictly limit data access to vetted researchers Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. 2. Require analytical plans and ethics-board approval up front Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20 th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. 3. Emphasize true transparency Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives.
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Millions of Eggs Recalled After Dozens Sickened With Salmonella
The US Food and Drug Administration said more than 20 million eggs have been recalled after 21 people were hospitalized with salmonella. The eggs, distributed by the August Egg Company, were sold to retailers including Walmart Inc. and Safeway Stores Inc. between February 3 and May 19. The sell-by dates ranged from March 4 to June 19, the FDA said with its full list of brands involved.
San Francisco Chronicle
34 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Where you live may affect your risk of dementia, UCSF study finds
In a major national study led by UCSF researchers, dementia rates among older Americans were found to vary sharply by region, with the Southeast facing the greatest burden and the Bay Area's broader region faring somewhat better. Published Monday in JAMA Neurology, the study drew on health records from more than 1.2 million veterans age 65 and older, served by the Veterans Health Administration, the largest integrated health system in the U.S. It is one of the largest efforts to date to chart geographic patterns in dementia, and its findings could guide how public health officials respond to one of the most pressing challenges of an aging population. Using the Mid-Atlantic region — including states such as Pennsylvania and Virginia — as the baseline, UCSF researchers found that dementia incidence was 25% higher in the Southeast, which includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi. Rates in the Northwest and Rocky Mountains were 23% higher, and in the South, including Texas and New Mexico, 18% higher. California was part of the Southwest region, which showed a 13% higher rate of dementia compared to the Mid-Atlantic. The Northeast, including New York and New England states, was 7% higher. 'The study underscores the need to understand regional differences in dementia and the importance of region-specific prevention and intervention efforts,' said senior author Dr. Kristine Yaffe, a professor at UCSF and the San Francisco VA Health Care System. 'Quality of education, early life conditions, and environmental exposures may be among those factors,' she said. The authors noted some limitations in the study, including that veterans 'may not be entirely representative of the general U.S. population, particularly regarding sex and gender distribution,' and have a higher prevalence of dementia risk factors, including traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress and depression. However, despite adjusting for race, age, cardiovascular disease and rurality, the regional patterns remained, highlighting the importance of local context in both risk and response, the authors added.
