How bugs and beet juice could play roles in the race to replace artificial dyes in food
Tampow is part of the team at Sensient Technologies Corp., one of the world's largest dyemakers, that is rushing to help the salad dressing manufacturer — along with thousands of other American businesses — meet demands to overhaul colors used to brighten products from cereals to sports drinks.
Advertisement
'Most of our customers have decided that this is finally the time when they're going to make that switch to a natural color,' said Dave Gebhardt, Sensient's senior technical director. He joined a recent tour of the Sensient Colors factory in a north St. Louis neighborhood.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Last week, U.S. health officials announced plans to persuade food companies to voluntarily eliminate petroleum-based artificial dyes by the end of 2026.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called them 'poisonous compounds' that endanger children's health and development, citing limited evidence of potential health risks.
The federal push follows a flurry of state laws and a January decision to ban the artificial dye known as Red 3 — found in cakes, candies and some medications — because of cancer risks in lab animals. Social media influencers and ordinary consumers have ramped up calls for artificial colors to be removed from foods.
Advertisement
A change to natural colors may not be fast
The FDA allows about three dozen color additives, including eight remaining synthetic dyes. But making the change from the petroleum-based dyes to colors derived from vegetables, fruits, flowers and even insects won't be easy, fast or cheap, said Monica Giusti, an Ohio State University food color expert.
'Study after study has shown that if all companies were to remove synthetic colors from their formulations, the supply of the natural alternatives would not be enough,' Giusti said. 'We are not really ready.'
It can take six months to a year to convert a single product from a synthetic dye to a natural one. And it could require three to four years to build up the supply of botanical products necessary for an industrywide shift, Sensient officials said.
'It's not like there's 150 million pounds of beet juice sitting around waiting on the off chance the whole market may convert,' said Paul Manning, the company's chief executive. 'Tens of millions of pounds of these products need to be grown, pulled out of the ground, extracted.'
To make natural dyes, Sensient works with farmers and producers around the world to harvest the raw materials, which typically arrive at the plant as bulk concentrates. They're processed and blended into liquids, granules or powders and then sent to food companies to be added to final products.
Natural dyes are harder to make and use than artificial colors. They are less consistent in color, less stable and subject to changes related to acidity, heat and light, Manning said. Blue is especially difficult. There aren't many natural sources of the color and those that exist can be hard to maintain during processing.
Advertisement
Also, a natural color costs about 10 times more to make than the synthetic version, Manning estimated.
'How do you get that same vividness, that same performance, that same level of safety in that product as you would in a synthetic product?' he said. 'There's a lot of complexity associated with that.'
The insects that could make 'Barbie pink' naturally
Companies have long used the Red 3 synthetic dye to create what Sensient officials describe as 'the Barbie pink.'
To create that color with a natural source might require the use of cochineal, an insect about the size of a peppercorn.
The female insects release a vibrant red pigment, carminic acid, in their bodies and eggs. The bugs live only on prickly pear cactuses in Peru and elsewhere. About 70,000 cochineal insects are needed to produce 1 kilogram, about 2.2 pounds, of dye.
'It's interesting how the most exotic colors are found in the most exotic places,' said Norb Norbrega, who travels the world scouting new hues for Sensient.
Artificial dyes are used widely in U.S. foods. About 1 in 5 food products in the U.S. contains added colors, whether natural or synthetic, Manning estimated. Many contain multiple colors.
FDA requires a sample of each batch of synthetic colors to be submitted for testing and certification. Color additives derived from plant, animal or mineral sources are exempt, but have been evaluated by the agency.
Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children.
Advertisement
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says that the approved dyes are safe when used according to regulations and that 'most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives.'
But critics note that added colors are a key component of ultraprocessed foods, which account for more than 70% of the U.S. diet and have been associated with a host of chronic health problems, including heart disease, diabetes and obesity.
'I am all for getting artificial food dyes out of the food supply,' said Marion Nestle, a food policy expert. 'They are strictly cosmetic, have no health or safety purpose, are markers of ultraprocessed foods and may be harmful to some children.'
The cautionary tale of Trix cereal
Color is powerful driver of consumer behavior and changes can backfire, Giusti noted. In 2016, food giant General Mills removed artificial dyes from Trix cereal after requests from consumers, switching to natural sources including turmeric, strawberries and radishes.
But the cereal lost its neon colors, resulting in more muted hues — and a consumer backlash. Trix fans said they missed the bright colors and familiar taste of the cereal. In 2017, the company switched back.
'When it's a product you already love, that you're used to consuming, and it changes slightly, then it may not really be the same experience,' Giusti said. 'Announcing a regulatory change is one step, but then the implementation is another thing.'
Kennedy, the health secretary, said U.S. officials have an 'understanding' with food companies to phase out artificial colors. Industry officials told The Associated Press that there is no formal agreement.
However, several companies have said they plan to accelerate a shift to natural colors in some of their products.
Advertisement
PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta said most of its products are already free of artificial colors, and that its Lays and Tostitos brands will phase them out by the end of this year. He said the company plans to phase out artificial colors — or at least offer consumers a natural alternative — over the next few years.
Representatives for General Mills said they're 'committed to continuing the conversation' with the administration. WK Kellogg officials said they are reformulating cereals used in the nation's school lunch programs to eliminate the artificial dyes and will halt any new products containing them starting next January.
Sensient officials wouldn't confirm which companies are seeking help making the switch, but they said they're ready for the surge.
'Now that there's a date, there's the timeline,' Manning said. 'It certainly requires action.'
Dee-Ann Durbin contributed reporting from Detroit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Budget's Caps on Grad School Loans Could Worsen Doctor Shortage
President Trump's proposed budget would make deep cuts in government health plans and medical research, and, critics say, could also make finding a doctor more difficult: It restricts loans that students rely on to pursue professional graduate degrees, making the path to becoming a physician harder even as doctor shortages loom and the American population is graying. The domestic policy bill, which passed in the House last month, would cap direct federal unsubsidized loans at $150,000 — far less than the cost of obtaining a medical education — and phase out the Grad PLUS loans that help many students make up the difference. Medicine, dentistry and osteopathic medicine are among the most expensive graduate programs. Four years of medical education costs $286,454 at a public school, on average, and $390,848 at a private one, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical school graduates leave with an average debt of $212,341, the association found. The price of a four-year program in osteopathic medicine is $297,881 at a public school, on average, and $371,403 at a private school, according to the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. The average indebtedness of their graduates is $259,196. The proposed loan caps 'will either push students and families into the private loan market, where they take on more risk and have less consumer protection, or simply push people out of higher education altogether,' said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director at the Student Borrower Protection Center, a nonprofit advocacy group. Private student loans are also not eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs, which many students rely on to manage their debt. Students from low-income families may have difficulty qualifying for private loans. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) on FJ Research's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on OSCR. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR)'s share was trading at $14.15 as of 4th June. OSCR's trailing and forward P/E were 35.38 and 19.84 respectively according to Yahoo Finance. A female doctor using the latest healthcare IT technology in her medical practice. Oscar Health represents a bold attempt to overhaul the dysfunctional infrastructure of the $4.5 trillion American healthcare industry, which is plagued by inefficiencies, misaligned incentives, and staggering administrative costs. Unlike traditional insurers or consumer-facing telehealth startups like Hims and Hers, Oscar is rebuilding the backend—the core logic layer that powers healthcare transactions. It's a fully integrated, tech-driven insurance stack spans claims processing, risk scoring, provider networks, and member engagement, all powered by proprietary software and increasingly AI. This infrastructure is not only used internally but is also being licensed externally, giving Oscar the potential to become the AWS of health insurance. The company is especially well-positioned in the rapidly evolving Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, which has expanded beyond low-income households to include a broader swath of middle-income Americans, thanks to enhanced subsidies under recent legislation. As legacy insurers retreat from this complex segment, Oscar's low admin costs, member engagement capabilities, and tech adaptability put it in pole position to seize market share. Currently active in 20 states, Oscar is on a clear growth trajectory. Despite its compelling fundamentals, the market still undervalues the company, with its stock trading below IPO levels. However, Oscar's long-term vision is backed by Thrive Capital and Josh Kushner, investors with a track record of identifying transformative platforms. Their continued involvement signals deep conviction and a willingness to drive strategic execution. With structural tailwinds, scalable infrastructure, and a highly engaged investor base, Oscar Health offers a mispriced opportunity in one of America's most essential yet broken industries. Previously, we covered a on Oscar Health (OSCR) by convexititties in March 2025, focusing on political overhangs and insider buying. FJ Research's June 2025 thesis complements this by highlighting Oscar's AI-powered backend platform and ACA market leadership, reinforcing the long-term upside case. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 41 hedge fund portfolios held OSCR at the end of the first quarter which was 43 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
