logo
Fact Check: RFK Jr.'s effort to phase out artificial food dyes is not an outright ban — nor effective immediately

Fact Check: RFK Jr.'s effort to phase out artificial food dyes is not an outright ban — nor effective immediately

Yahoo24-04-2025

Claim:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on April 22, 2025, he will ban artificial dyes from all American food products, effective immediately.
Rating:
What's True:
Kennedy did announce a planned phase-out of all synthetic, petroleum-based food dyes during a news conference on April 22, 2025. Also, the Food and Drug Administration announced it would revoke authorization for two specific, rarely used dyes. However …
What's False:
Officials merely asked food companies to voluntarily stop using the six more common synthetic food dyes, stopping short of an outright ban. Furthermore, officials hope to eliminate those dyes from America's food supply by the end of 2026, not immediately.
On April 22, 2025, social media users began claiming that U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a ban on artificial food dyes, effective immediately.
The rumor spread widely on platforms like X, Facebook and Threads.
For example, an X post dated April 22 with nearly 100,000 likes claimed: "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has officially announced that, effective as of 4 PM EST today, artificial dyes will be banned from all food products." A community note underneath the post alleged that "the ban is not effective immediately."
But neither the X post nor the community note was entirely accurate. Kennedy did, indeed, hold a news conference alongside Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary announcing the U.S. government's intention to phase out the use of all petroleum-based synthetic dyes in American food products.
However, officials announced an outright ban only on two rarely used dyes; they will rely on voluntary cooperation from the food industry to end use of the remaining six and to accelerate a deadline set by the previous administration eliminating a dye known as Red No. 3. Furthermore, officials expressed the hope American food products will be free of synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, not immediately following the news conference. Thus, we rate this claim a mixture of truth and falsehood.
The FDA, which HHS oversees, did not directly answer an inquiry from Snopes about whether the it intends to consider enforcement mechanisms for its stated timeline or an outright ban on artificial dyes. Instead, an unidentified HHS official said via email: "As Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary stated during yesterday's press conference, the food companies HHS met with recognize the harmful effects of synthetic food dyes on children. These companies are eager to engage in discussions about phasing out these dyes to promote a healthier America."
The research on the safety of these dyes is mixed, although growing evidence indicates an association between artificial dyes and behavioral and cognitive issues. An April 2021 review of research on the subject by the California Environmental Protection Agency found that the evidence suggests "synthetic food dyes are associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children, and that children vary in their sensitivity."
But the FDA also reviews scientific literature as part of its efforts to regulate the dyes, and according to an agency Q&A webpage, "the totality of scientific evidence indicates that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives."
Here is how Makary outlined the FDA's plans regarding food coloring during his April 22 news conference with Kennedy (at 7:16, emphasis ours):
Today, the FDA is taking the following steps.
No. 1: establishing a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition from petroleum-based food dyes to natural alternatives.
No. 2: initiating a process to revoke authorization of synthetic food colorings, including those not in production, namely Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, within the coming weeks.
No. 3: taking steps to eliminate the remaining six synthetic dyes on the market from the U.S. food supply, specifically Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 5, Yellow Dye No. 6, Blue Dye No. 1, Blue Dye No. 2 and Green Dye No. 3 by the end of next year.
We are also requesting food companies to remove Red Dye No. 3 sooner than the 2027-2028 deadline previously announced.
A full video of the news conference is available here.
As Makary states, the FDA will only end authorization — and thus permissible use for — two of the dyes: Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B. Both are rarely used by the food industry. Neither the FDA nor HHS set an immediate or specific deadline for banning these dyes; while Makary, as shown above, said the FDA will revoke authorization for the two dyes in "the coming weeks," HHS wrote in an April 22 news release that the ban will happen "in the coming months."
As far as the other six more commonly used dyes are concerned, the "steps" taken appear to be simply asking the food industry not to use the other dyes by a requested timeline of "the end of next year," or 2026. Thus, the FDA's announcement does not mean a ban on all artificial food coloring, nor does it mean an immediate ban on any synthetic food dyes.
Former President Joe Biden's administration revoked authorization for Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs on Jan. 15, 2025, with a deadline set for Jan. 15, 2027 for food and Jan. 18, 2028 for drugs. While Makary said the agency requested that food and drug industries move that deadline up, HHS did not set a specific earlier deadline in the news conference or in its accompanying news release.
According to Kennedy, the U.S. government requested that the food industry phase out use of artificial dyes and the industry agreed — which, by definition, is not a ban because officials are not prohibiting the industry from doing anything, at least not as of this writing. See this exchange between Kennedy and Food Fix reporter Helena Bottemiller Evich during the news conference at 44:09 (emphasis ours):
EVICH: You mentioned that the goal is to work with the food industry to get most of the major synthetic food dyes out. What is the plan if the food industry does not voluntarily agree to do that, and what are the next steps if you can't get agreement within the industry?
KENNEDY: Well, here the industry has voluntarily agreed. … I think as we move forward, we are going to work with the industry. They've shown a lot of leadership on this right now. In fact, we're getting food companies now, and fast-food companies who are calling us almost every day, and asking us, "How do we do this, what do you want us to do, will you do a press conference with us?" and so we're really happy with the reception — and I think they're ready to change the industry; they have children too.
Furthermore, officials acknowledged that this effort does not involve any regulatory or legislative changes during an exchange with New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg (at 52:59, emphasis ours):
STOLBERG: I just want to make sure we understand the parameters of this agreement with the food companies. Do you actually have a settlement with the food companies and a formal agreement for them to adhere to these guidelines, and if so, why don't we have anyone from the food industry here?
KENNEDY: I would say we don't have an agreement, we have an understanding, but I'm gonna let Marty take this question.
MAKARY: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You win more bees with honey than fire. Good to see you, Sheryl. So, there are a number of tools at our disposal. And so, I believe in love, and let's start in a friendly way, and see if we can do this without any statutory or regulatory changes, but we are exploring every tool in the toolbox to make sure this gets done very quickly. And they want to do it. They want to do it. So why go down a complicated road with Congress when they want to do this?
It is worth noting that no major food industry group has appeared to publicly concede to the 2026 deadline in full. Many wrote noncommittal statements that called artificial dyes "safe"; meanwhile, the International Dairy Foods Association announced a voluntary pledge to end use of artificial colors in products specifically sold through federal K-12 school meal programs by July 2026. The association's pledge covers "more than 50 dairy and food companies," which represents "nearly all of the dairy foods sold to schools in the U.S."
Confusion about whether Kennedy announced a prohibition on artificial food dyes is understandable, given that many reputable news outlets, such as the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, wrote in their headlines that Kennedy announced a "ban" on food dyes — in contrast to other outlets, such as CBS News, which wrote, "FDA stops short of synthetic food dye ban, calls on industry to stop use."
But the headlines don't tell the full story; The New York Times, for example, wrote in its story that Kennedy "asserted he has 'an understanding' with major food manufacturers to remove petroleum-based food colorings from their products by 2026" and then noted that "none have publicly agreed" to Kennedy's demands. (One of the reporters on the New York Times story was Stolberg, the reporter who clarified with Makary that the government's supposed agreement with the food companies does not mean any regulatory changes will occur.)
In conclusion, Kennedy and the FDA, on April 22, 2025, revealed a plan to phase out synthetic food colorings from American food products. But the effort largely requires voluntary participation from the industries involved, rather than regulatory, legislative or policy changes that would constitute a ban on artificial food dye. Furthermore, should the plan go exactly as described, the country's food supply won't be free of synthetic dyes until the end of 2026.
Bailey, M. M. "Synthetic Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks." Center for Science in the Public Interest, 15 Apr. 2024, www.cspinet.org/cspi-news/synthetic-food-dyes-rainbow-risks. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
Children's Environmental Health Center, et al. Health Effects Assessment Potential Neurobehavioral Effects of Synthetic Food Dyes in Children. Apr. 2021, oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/risk-assessment/report/healthefftsassess041621.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr. 2025.
"Definition of BAN." Www.merriam-Webster.com, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
FDA. "Color Additives Questions and Answers for Consumers." FDA, Dec. 2023, www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consumers/color-additives-questions-and-answers-consumers. Accessed 24 Apr. 2025.
---. "Summary of Color Additives for Use in the United States." U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024, www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/summary-color-additives-use-united-states-foods-drugs-cosmetics-and-medical-devices. Accessed 24 Apr. 2025.
"Healthy Dairy in Schools Commitment." IDFA, www.idfa.org/healthydairyinschools. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
"HHS, FDA to Phase out Petroleum-Based Synthetic Dyes in Nation's Food Supply." HHS.gov, 22 Apr. 2025, www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-fda-food-dyes-food.html. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
"NCA Statement on HHS, FDA Announcement Regarding Food Dyes." NCA, 22 Apr. 2025, candyusa.com/news/nca-statement-on-hhs-fda-announcement-regarding-food-dyes/. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
PBS NewsHour. "WATCH LIVE: RFK Jr. To Announce Phasing out of Artificial Food Dyes." Www.youtube.com, 22 Apr. 2025, www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnxgKp1eGk. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
Rubino, Natalie. "Consumer Brands Issues Statement on HHS, FDA Phasing out Food Dyes from Food Supply - Consumer Brands Association." Consumer Brands Association, 22 Apr. 2025, consumerbrandsassociation.org/press-releases/consumer-brands-issues-statement-on-hhs-fda-phasing-out-food-dyes-from-food-supply/. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms
Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms

The Hill

time32 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a 'golden share' — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected. 'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership,' the two companies said. 'This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said. 'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said. The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work and what investments would be made. Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment. Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans.' The Japan-based steelmaker had been offering nearly $15 billion to purchase the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in a merger that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, yet he expressed optimism in working out an arrangement once in office. 'We have a golden share, which I control,' said Trump, although it was unclear what he meant by suggesting that the federal government would determine what U.S. Steel does as a company. Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.' Still, Nippon Steel has never said it was backing off its bid to buy and control U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary. The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations. The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement. The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement. The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction. Trump reserves the authority to issue further actions regarding the investment as part of the order he signed on Friday. ___ Associated Press writer Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.

Sierra Club: EPA plan to repeal emission standards would ‘put Americans at risk'
Sierra Club: EPA plan to repeal emission standards would ‘put Americans at risk'

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sierra Club: EPA plan to repeal emission standards would ‘put Americans at risk'

The Trump administration's EPA seeks to repeal all greenhouse gas emission standards on the power sector. (Photo by Robert Zullo/States Newsroom) Estimates from the Sierra Club found Iowa utilities would be allowed to release 26 million tons of carbon emissions annually, if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized a proposal to repeal carbon pollution standards. In its explanation for the proposal, EPA claims greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired plants 'do not contribute significantly' to dangerous air pollution and that removing pollution standards set by the agency under previous administrations would save $19 billion in regulatory costs over two decades. The Sierra Club, which is an environmental organization with chapters across the country, said the power sector is the largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and that exposure to these air pollutants are linked to a higher risk of heart disease, respiratory diseases, pregnancy complications and cancer. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'The Trump Administration continues to put the American people at risk by stripping away environmental safeguards proven to clean up the air we breathe and improve public health,' Pam Mackey Taylor, director of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. The proposal would repeal regulations put in place in 2015 and in 2024 that put emission guidelines and standards on coal-fired power plants, via Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's proposal argues the Clean Air Act requires the agency to determine, before it issues regulations, that pollutants emitted by fossil fuel-fired power plants 'causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution' that is 'anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' The current administration argues EPA in the past created regulation standards without this determination. EPA data shows that 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 came from the power sector, which was just slightly less than the transportation sector which accounted for 28% of domestic greenhouse gas emissions. In an EPA presentation explaining the rules which were finalized in July 2024, the agency estimated the additional carbon pollution standards would have cut 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and other 'harmful air pollutants that are known to endanger public health.' Sierra Club charted the impacts these regulations would have had, state-by-state based on operating coal-powered plants and their estimated closure dates. EPA regulations around carbon pollution standards for the power sector have been challenged in the past, most recently with a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case that repealed part of the 2015 Clean Power Plan emission guidelines. The proposal to repeal the most recent rules alleges Biden-era EPA leadership did not change course following the Supreme Court ruling, but created similar, rules with expanded regulations. Acting under a handful of executive orders from President Donald Trump, and Zeldin's 'Powering the Great American Comeback' initiative, the agency seeks to repeal 'all' greenhouse gas emission standards on the power sector, or alternatively, just the 'most burdensome set of requirements.' The notice said this will 'ensure affordable and reliable energy supplies and drive down the costs of transportation, heating, utilities, farming, and manufacturing while boosting our national security.' The proposal will have a public hearing 15 days after it is published in the Federal Register, where EPA will also accept public comments on the proposed rules 45 days after it is published. Those interested can search for the docket in the federal register with Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124. 'During the public comment period, we will continue to fight for clean air and protect our communities being harmed by Trump's shortsighted actions,' Mackey Taylor said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

‘No Kings Rally' organizer hoping for thousands on Saturday
‘No Kings Rally' organizer hoping for thousands on Saturday

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘No Kings Rally' organizer hoping for thousands on Saturday

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Metro leaders are preparing for protests Saturday. Republican Governor Mike Kehoe's also activated the Missouri National Guard ahead of the 'No Kings Rallies' across Missouri. Authorities are making plans now to try to make sure they stay peaceful. 'To send out troops against American citizens is kind of ridiculous, really,' Indivisible Kansas City Founder Beverly Harvey said on Friday, talking about Governor Kehoe's activation. State House Minority Leader Ashley Aune told FOX4 Friday that just because the Missouri National Guard's been activated does not necessarily mean there will be a presence at the protests. Kansas attorney general blocked from denying gender changes on driver's licenses Republican Missouri Congressman Mark Alford says the National Guard is there to protect police officers and citizens should they need it. Congressman Alford added that he thought Governor Kehoe's decision was very wise. 'I'm praying for peaceful protests,' he said. 'There's going to be one in Lee's Summit. There's going to be one there near the Plaza at Mill Creek Park. You have every right to disagree with Donald J. Trump and his policies, but let's do it peacefully.' House Minority Leader Aune says she always wants Governor Kehoe to feel like he can activate Missouri's National Guard if need be. 'That said, there has been no indication that I'm aware of that any of the protests planned in our state are going to be violent in any way,' she said. The rallies are timed to coincide with Saturday's military parade in Washington D.C. The local rally has gained extra attention amid the White House's crackdown on illegal immigration. Marines are seen standing guard at a federal building in Los Angeles FOX4 asked Harvey if she thought things would get out of hand on Saturday. 'I know that our group won't get out of hand,' she replied. 'Indivisible prides itself nationally and all the groups, there's like 2,000 groups that will be around the United States tomorrow, on peaceful demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call it, so we pride ourselves on that. We can't guarantee there won't be instigators. It wouldn't surprise me if there's instigators that show up to try to cause trouble.' The Kansas City, MO Police Department (KCPD) tells FOX4 they expect a peaceful gathering, adding that they have response plans in place should any issues arise. FOX4 does not know if KCPD will have more officers on patrol Saturday due to the protest at Mill Creek Park. It starts at noon and is scheduled to go until 3 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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