
‘Toxic soup': Food dyes set for US phase out under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. health push still on Aussie shelves
All six artificial food colours set to be phased out under a Trump administration crackdown sparked by concern about their potential impact on health are freely available in foods sold in Australia.
Announced this week, the move away from artificial to natural colouring alternatives is expected to affect a wide range of US products that includes the famously bright, rainbow coloured Skittles.
'For the last 50 years, American children have increasingly been living in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals,' FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said at a press conference discussing the move.
He said the FDA would work with industry to eliminate food dyes Green No. 3 (known in Australia as Fast Green FCF), Red No. 40 (Allura Red AC) , Yellow No. 5 (Tartrazine), Yellow No. 6 (Sunset yellow FCF), Blue No. 1 Brilliant Blue FCF), and Blue No. 2 (Indigotine) by the end of next year.
The FDA will also revoke authorisation within months for synthetic colourings Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — which are already banned in Australia — and speed up the planned removal of Red Dye 3, which is permitted only in limited foods in Australia, including preserved cherries and icing/frosting, sooner than already planned.
It's expected the US changes will require a potentially costly overhaul of recipes and their new look may affect their attractiveness to consumers.
A spokesperson for FSANZ said it was aware of the FDA announcement, but said that the six new dyes targeted by the FDA were not harmful in the quantities allowed in the Australian food supply.
'The six colours in the FDA statement are all permitted under Schedule 16 of the Code under defined conditions of use in specific foods,' the spokesperson said.
'FSANZ surveys show that dietary exposure to food colours remains far below the acceptable daily intake, with levels under 5 per cent even including for children. These findings confirm there is no public health concern related to the use of approved food colours.'
In Australia, food dyes are required to undergo a safety assessment by FSANZ before being added to food and drinks sold. A safety limit is set to ensure no-one will be able to eat the additive to an unsafe level.
Backlash against artificial colours has been brewing in the US for more than a decade but the industry argues that claims the dyes were dangerous lack evidence.
Last month, newly appointed Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told top food executives that removing artificial dyes from the food system was an urgent priority of the Trump administration.
He has previously used Kellogg's Froot Loops as his primary example when railing against artificial colourants.
Under his so-called Make America Healthy Again platform he has argued a corrupt alliance of drug and food companies and the federal health agencies that regulate them are making Americans less healthy.
He has pledged to end the chronic disease epidemic in children and adults, and has been vocal about making nutritious food, rather than drugs, central to that goal.
Rather than an outright ban, Mr Makary said the FDA would work with industry to do it voluntarily.
Mr Makary said the agency plans to authorise four additional colour additives using natural ingredients in the coming weeks, while also expediting the review and approval of other natural ingredient colours.
He cited a Lancet study that concluded that artificial colours in the diet 'result in increased hyperactivity'.
'The F in FDA stands for food,' he said. 'Now, there's no one ingredient that accounts for the child chronic disease epidemic. And let's be honest, taking petroleum-based food dyes out of the food supply is not a silver bullet that will instantly make America's children healthy, but it is one important step.'
— with CNBC

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Age
2 days ago
- The Age
Caitlin longed to find her genetic family. What she learnt about her mother was a surprise
In 2016, on a whim, American woman Dani Shapiro submitted her DNA for analysis through a genealogy website. Weeks later she received the results: her 'beloved father' was, in fact, not her biological father, a revelation that shook Shapiro to the core. In her bestselling 2019 memoir, Inheritance: A Memoir of Genealogy, Paternity, and Love, Shapiro documents her experience opening Pandora's genealogy box and explores the personal and profound impacts that DNA tests can reveal. But Shapiro is far from alone, with 2021 figures showing more than 30 million people have submitted their DNA via commercial tests such as 23andMe, AncestryDNA, CircleDNA, GenoPalate and MyHeritage. While there are numerous motivations for people to undertake a DNA test – from genealogy, gaining health information, and locating a biological relative, to plain curiosity – the results can often reveal more than anticipated. 'DNA testing is an interesting phenomenon because of the 'big unknown' that could be revealed in the results,' says clinical psychologist and author, Dr Rebecca Ray. 'Sometimes, unexpected results can bring confusion or emotional distress if they uncover family secrets or challenge personal beliefs, leading to a complex set of feelings.' And sometimes, Ray adds, the results can have the opposite effect. 'The tests can also bring clarity, healing and connection, especially for those searching for identity or lost family members.' Here's what happened when three women with very different stories tried a commercial DNA test. 'I had a longing to find my genetic family': Caitlin Leishman, 18 'I'm double-donor conceived. This means that while my mum was pregnant with me, I am not biologically related to her. When I was born, I had no idea who my genetic parents or family were.

Sydney Morning Herald
2 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Caitlin longed to find her genetic family. What she learnt about her mother was a surprise
In 2016, on a whim, American woman Dani Shapiro submitted her DNA for analysis through a genealogy website. Weeks later she received the results: her 'beloved father' was, in fact, not her biological father, a revelation that shook Shapiro to the core. In her bestselling 2019 memoir, Inheritance: A Memoir of Genealogy, Paternity, and Love, Shapiro documents her experience opening Pandora's genealogy box and explores the personal and profound impacts that DNA tests can reveal. But Shapiro is far from alone, with 2021 figures showing more than 30 million people have submitted their DNA via commercial tests such as 23andMe, AncestryDNA, CircleDNA, GenoPalate and MyHeritage. While there are numerous motivations for people to undertake a DNA test – from genealogy, gaining health information, and locating a biological relative, to plain curiosity – the results can often reveal more than anticipated. 'DNA testing is an interesting phenomenon because of the 'big unknown' that could be revealed in the results,' says clinical psychologist and author, Dr Rebecca Ray. 'Sometimes, unexpected results can bring confusion or emotional distress if they uncover family secrets or challenge personal beliefs, leading to a complex set of feelings.' And sometimes, Ray adds, the results can have the opposite effect. 'The tests can also bring clarity, healing and connection, especially for those searching for identity or lost family members.' Here's what happened when three women with very different stories tried a commercial DNA test. 'I had a longing to find my genetic family': Caitlin Leishman, 18 'I'm double-donor conceived. This means that while my mum was pregnant with me, I am not biologically related to her. When I was born, I had no idea who my genetic parents or family were.

Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Al Pacino tests credibility as a priestly exorcist in this horror outing
THE RITUAL ★ ½ (MA) 98 minutes Exorcism movies are as much rituals as the exorcisms themselves, rarely intended to teach us anything new. The writer-director David Midell settles for going through the motions in his lacklustre The Ritual, the only real novelty being the presence of Al Pacino as the exorcist, despite the potential of the subject matter, a 'real' case that occurred in an Iowa nunnery in 1928 and was written up in Time a few years on. 'Real' has been put in quotation marks for obvious reasons, and in theory the film leaves the question open: the exorcism was real, but whether any demons were expelled is for the viewer to decide. For dramatic purposes Midell skews the balance in favour of belief, presenting Father Joseph Steiger (Dan Stevens), the film's representative of sceptical reason, as a weakling unable to face the truth confronting him. In any case, the film's claim to historical accuracy is not to be taken too seriously. Emma Schmidt, the possessed woman who is brought to the nunnery, is played by 27-year-old Abigail Cowen, although the real Schmidt was 46 at the time. I can only suppose this has been done for commercial reasons, meaning someone has decided that on balance the audience would prefer to see a younger woman tied to a bed while she writhes, sweats and makes guttural noises. The tying-down happens a fair way into the film, after the matter has been debated at length by Steiger, in his capacity as the parish priest, and Father Theophilus Riesinger, the elderly German-American exorcist played by Pacino, whose judgement is vindicated at every turn. Less prominently featured is the Mother Superior (Patricia Heaton), who complains at one point about a lifetime spent obeying the orders of men, a nod to feminism which under the circumstances is less than convincing. Nor does the film convincingly feel as if it's taking place in the US Midwest in the 1920s. The handheld camerawork is somewhat jarring in a period piece, but the bigger problem is that none of the actors seem to belong. Cowen is up for what's required of her physically, but lacks a character to play other than 'woman possessed by demons'.