Major change coming to ice cream recipes by 2028
The U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. intends for the Food and Drug Administration to phase out the use of petroleum-based synthetic dyes in the nation's food supply.
As a result, a group of 40 ice cream producers, including Turkey Hill and Schwoeppe Dairy, have pledged to remove Red No. 3, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 by the end of 2027, according to the International Dairy Foods Association. The group accounts for more than 90 percent of the ice cream sold in the U.S.
The pledge to remove food dyes will only be applied to ice creams that are made with dairy milk and are sold at grocery stores, convenience stores, and online retailers.
Ice creams made with non-dairy ingredients and small businesses that make their own ice cream will not be included, according to the International Dairy Foods Association.
The pledge will only apply to ice creams made with dairy milk and sold at grocery stores, convenience stores, and online retailers (Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)
The Trump administration has led the move to eliminate synthetic dyes from the food supply by the end of next year, saying it could mark a 'major step forward' in the drive to 'Make America Healthy Again.' The ban would impact products such as breakfast cereals, candy, and snacks. The dyes have been tied to neurological problems in some children.
'For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent,' Kennedy said in a statement back in February. 'These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children's health and development.'
He added: 'We're restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public's trust. And, we're doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day.'
At a cabinet meeting at the beginning of April, Kennedy claimed the dyes directly affect 'academic performance, violence in the schools, and mental health, as well as physical health.'
In addition to ice cream, Kraft Heinz, the maker of Jell-O, Kool-Aid, and boxed macaroni and cheese, also announced last month that it would remove all chemical dyes from its products by the end of 2027.
The company stated that, while 90 percent of its U.S. products measured by sales are already free of artificial dyes, it will not use any Food, Drug & Cosmetic colors in any new products moving forward.
Kraft Heinz said that for the small number of their products that still contain artificial colors, they plan to remove the dyes where they are not critical, replace them with natural colors, or, in instances where the color isn't critical to the product, they would remove them entirely.
While many products will not be impacted, some that may see changes include Crystal Light, Heinz relish, Kool-Aid, Jell-O, and Jet-Puffed, as they contain dyes such as Red No. 40 and Blue No. 1.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
4 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
20 Foods Americans Say Should Never Be Banned
Everyone has a favorite food, but some people have a food they love so intensely that they'd start a revolution if it were ever banned, and with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s continuous crackdowns on the nation's food supply, the possibility seems ever more realistic. I was curious about what foods people could never give up, so I asked Tasty readers about the snacks that would make them march the streets in protest if they were ever banned. Let's just say there were some very passionate answers. Here are 20 different foods that would surely cause people to revolt if they were forbidden, as told by their most loyal fans: "Lay's potato chips are my life. The crunchy yet thin chip and the salty goodness are so amazing that no other chip can compete. If it were banned, I think I would just cry. It's my favorite snack and is a staple in my house." —Esti, 25, New York "Krispy Kreme donuts!" "Oreos. You can pry my black-and-white circles of deliciousness from my cold, dead hands." —Sonia, 25, Massachusetts "The BUILT Puff Protein Bars are my favorite snack, and it's like eating a giant chocolate-coated marshmallow. If the FDA banned them, I would literally petition and protest all I could in front of them until I could eat them and buy them again." "Smartfood White Cheddar Popcorn. It was a big staple of my childhood, and I would hate to see it go." —Matilda, 25, Oregon "Bacon. Specifically, American-style bacon (I like Canadian bacon, but I could survive without it). If they try to ban it, there will be rioting in the streets." "I would be so sad if they got rid of those really terrible, super soft cookies with the half-inch of icing on top of them. I don't buy them often, but sometimes that craving hits hard." —Allie, 36, Arizona "Mint Milanos." "Annie's Mac 'n' Cheese, as childish as it is. It's always been my American staple, and I would hate to see it banned in the US." —Anonymous "I think that if the US banned Gushers, I would start hyperventilating." Want to cook recipes in step-by-step mode right from your phone? Download the free Tasty app right now. "Animal Crackers." —Leanna, 13, Michigan "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups." "Diet Coke." —silverdreamer30 "Gummy Bears and Watermelon Sour Patch Kids — the best candies ever!" "Nutella!!!!!" —fedora-the-explora "Doritos, specifically Nacho Cheese and Cool Ranch." "Goldfish." —Khylah "Blue Raspberry is the superior candy/slushie/Slurpee flavor. I would be DEVASTATED if that got taken away." "Starbursts." —littlemintmunchin "UnMeat Luncheon vegan meat. It is not my favorite food, but it is the junkiest, most trashy food I eat. It is absolutely not good for me, but I enjoy it once in a while, and I will not feel guilty. Unpopular opinion: It tastes better than SPAM." Do you have a favorite food that belongs on this list? Let me know in the comments! You know what we'll never ban? Tasty recipes! So download our free app to browse and save everything from 30-minute meals to show-stopping desserts — no subscription required.
Axios
4 minutes ago
- Axios
Texas is one of most restrictive states for birth control access
Texas is among states with the most restrictive access to contraception, a new scorecard from the Population Reference Bureau shows. Why it matters: Contraception access has become a political flashpoint since the U.S. Supreme Court ended Roe v. Wade, with Democrats unsuccessfully pressing to codify contraceptive access nationwide and some patients concerned that conservative state legislatures could enact new curbs. Zoom in: While Texas expanded Medicaid coverage for family-planning services through the Healthy Texas Women waiver, it hasn't adopted a broader expansion of the health insurance program for low-income residents. That has left gaps in coverage for men and people under 18, per the scorecard. The state requires insurers to cover prescription birth control if they cover other prescription drugs but doesn't mandate coverage of over-the-counter methods. Texas allows minors to consent to contraceptive services only if they're married or meet narrow exceptions. Texas also doesn't require sex education in schools, per the report. The big picture: Nearly 35% of Americans, or 121 million people, live in a state that actively restricts access. The most protective states included California, Washington, Connecticut, New York, New Mexico, Maryland and Oregon. What they're saying:"Reproductive health care access depends on where you live," said Cathryn Streifel, senior program director at PRB and co-author of the scorecard.
Hamilton Spectator
4 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Ford and Smith divided over Trump response at premiers' summit
Conservative premiers Doug Ford of Ontario and Danielle Smith of Alberta are at odds over how Canada should respond to US tariffs — especially when it comes to energy exports. At a premiers' summit in Huntsville on Tuesday, Ford refused to rule out an electricity export tax, while Smith firmly said no. 'We don't want to see export taxes on energy or export restrictions. It would have a devastating impact on Alberta and on Canada,' Smith said at a joint press conference. 'The Americans have a bigger hammer if they cut off [the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline]. Not only does that harm Ontario, it also harms Quebec.' Ford took a different view. 'Everything's on the table,' he said. 'We'll see how this deal goes and we'll see what he [Trump] has to say on August 1 .' President Donald Trump has said he will impose tariffs of up to 50 per cent on dozens of countries, including Canada, starting Aug. 1. Prime Minister Mark Carney downplayed the deadline , saying Canada's focus is on getting the best deal possible, no matter how long it takes. Ford, however, urged an aggressive response. 'We need to make sure we match tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar, and hit them back as hard as we possibly can,' Ford said. 'There's one thing President Trump understands — it's strength. He doesn't understand or appreciate weakness. He will roll over us like a cement roller if we show an ounce of weakness. We need to send a strong message.' Ford and Smith, along with Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Tuesday to build pipelines, rail lines and trade infrastructure aimed at reducing Canada's reliance on US markets. The premiers also called for repealing nine federal regulations they see as barriers to resource development, including Bill C-69, the tanker ban, the oil and gas emissions cap, federal carbon pricing and clean electricity rules. The federal government hasn't proposed an energy export tax, but experts say Canada should consider one. A 15 per cent levy on oil and gas could match Trump's tariffs, raise billions and support workers and green investments. Earlier this year, Ford briefly introduced a 25 per cent electricity export tax targeting Michigan, New York and Minnesota. He dropped it after Trump threatened to raise tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum and cars. Still, Ford says the tax could return if trade talks fail. 'We don't have to take a back seat to anyone in the world, and we sure as heck don't have to take a back seat to President Trump,' Ford added. Smith, however, says using Alberta's oil as leverage in a trade fight is not an option; the province exports most of its oil to the US and she wants that trade to remain stable. In 2023, Canada exported four million barrels of crude oil per day — 97 per cent of it to the US — and Alberta accounted for 87 per cent of that. The exports were worth $125 billion. Ontario, meanwhile, sends electricity to US states such as Michigan and New York, powering more than 1.5 million American homes and businesses. US governors have warned that new energy taxes could raise costs and damage cross-border energy ties. Fred Lazar, an economics professor at York University's Schulich School of Business, says Ford's tax idea is politically risky and argues this is a federal matter — not one provinces should try to handle alone. 'This is really a dispute between Canada and the US. The provinces are just bystanders,' Lazar said. 'Politically, they may have their own incentives, but practically, there's nothing they can do that would compel the US to change its policies. All it would do is make life harder for Ottawa.' Lazar believes the best move is for provinces to avoid taking action on their own and let Ottawa lead the negotiations. 'They're better off talking tough, doing nothing and letting Carney work it out.' Sheldon Williamson, a professor at Ontario Tech University, said the Ford–Smith split weakens Canada's bargaining power. 'While both leaders want to push back against US tariffs, diverging approaches — especially on energy exports — undermine any unified Canadian stance,' he said. 'Without cohesion, it becomes harder to exert meaningful pressure on Washington or to present a credible domestic front to Ottawa.' For Ontario, the stakes are high. Its auto sector is deeply integrated with the US supply chain. 'A broad-based tariff regime could be economically devastating,' Williamson said. He warned that although an electricity export tax may seem like an easy lever, 'it could backfire by raising prices for US consumers, inviting retaliation and damaging Ontario's own cross-border energy ties.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
