
Fascinating look inside US mega factory making artificial food dyes as it races to ditch chemicals
People in head-to-toe suiting at Sensient Technologies Corp., one of the world's largest dye-makers, create powdered and liquid dyes out of natural ingredients and store them in a giant warehouse to be shipped out to businesses they contract with.
Dave Gebhardt, Sensient's senior technical director, said: 'Most of our customers [including companies that make candies, sodas, and frozen treats] have decided that this is finally the time when they're going to make that switch to a natural color.'
However, Sensient also fears that it, along with the broader food dye manufacturing industry, will struggle to meet the demand for natural dyes that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the wider Trump Administration are compelling food companies to use exclusively by 2026.
It takes up to two years to grow the plants used to make natural colors, including black carrot extract, beet juice, and red cabbage. Synthetic dyes like the controversial Red 40, meanwhile, are relatively easy to make in large quantities.
According to Sensient, there is no guarantee that a robust enough supply of carrots, cabbage, beets, and algae will be available to produce the bright hues of red, orange, blue, and green that Americans have become accustomed to eating.
James Herrmann, marketing director of food colors at Sensient Technologies, said: 'If everybody switches at once, there is simply not enough material around the world available to meet the demand.'
Major manufacturers, such as Sensient, will also need to alter their processing practices to scale up the development of natural products, a costly undertaking that may take longer than the timeline ordered by RFK Jr.
Abby Tampow, a researcher in the lab, is working over petri dishes of red dyes spanning different ruby hues, trying to match the synthetic shade used for years in raspberry vinaigrette dressing.
'With this red, it needs a little more orange,' she told the Associated Press, mixing in purplish black carrot juice and an orange-red tint made from algae.
Sensient is investing in the cultivation of new plant-based ingredients for dyes and broadening its sourcing network for crops from around the world, to maintain a stable supply regardless of climate issues or geopolitical disruptions.
However, adhering to the Trump Administration's new initiative will necessitate a significant scale-up in growing and producing the natural sources of the dyes, which Sensient leadership does not believe is currently feasible.
Paul Manning, the company's chief executive, 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.
'Tens of millions of pounds of these products need to be grown, pulled out of the ground, extracted.'
Furthermore, small bugs called cochineal, which can create the bright Barbie pink used in candies, come from only a few sources, such as prickly pear cacti in Peru. Approximately 70,000 insects are required to produce just 2.2 pounds of dye.
Sensient sources raw materials from global farmers and producers. The ingredients typically arrive in bulk concentrates, which Sensient workers refine into liquids, granules, or powders.
Then, they are supplied to food manufacturers to be used in finished products.
Natural dyes are significantly more challenging to produce, store, and transport than their synthetic counterparts.
It can take around 10 times as much material to make natural colors to mimic just a small amount of artificial dye, which will likely drive up costs for producers.
Light and heat can cause colors to fade or change, or even separate. They are also likely to become chemically unstable with slight changes in acidity.
There are also specific colors, namely blue, that are particularly difficult to maintain during processing.
Manning said: '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?
'There's a lot of complexity associated with that.'
RFK Jr., flanked by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, announced last week that the agency will phase out the use of eight petroleum-based artificial food dyes – Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Citrus Red No. 2, and Orange B.
The new timeline follows a recent meeting in which he urged food industry executives to eliminate artificial dyes from products before the end of his term in 2028.
The FDA has not reached a formal agreement with the food industry to implement these goals, although it appears to have an understanding, and the agency has not presented a detailed plan for achieving them.
RFK Jr suggested more additives could be next, telling the crowd: 'We're going to get rid of the dyes and we're going to get rid of every ingredient and additive in food that we can legally address.
'And for those ingredients we can't ban legally, we're going to start informing Americans about what they're eating.'
Red 40 is among a group of dyes that contain benzidine, a known carcinogen for both humans and animals. While regulators permit trace amounts deemed 'safe,' concerns remain.
In 1985, the FDA estimated that exposure to free benzidine from these dyes could increase cancer risk to nearly 1 in 1 million people, just below the official threshold for concern.
Sensient's CEO Paul Manning emphasized the challenges of scaling natural dye production, noting that the industry can't rely on existing surplus crops like beet juice. Transitioning the market would require cultivating and processing tens of millions of pounds of raw materials
Studies have also linked Red 40 and similar dyes to hyperactivity in children, including those without ADHD. Research suggests that these additives may exacerbate symptoms or induce behavioral changes.
Additionally, Canadian scientists have found that Red 40 (also known as Allura Red) can disrupt gut function, impairing nutrient absorption and increasing the risk of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
They warn that prolonged exposure may weaken the body's defenses.
Blue 1, another common dye found in candies like gummy bears, has also been tied to hyperactivity and attention issues in kids.
Unlike the U.S., where the FDA often reacts to safety concerns after products hit the market, European regulators ban or require warning labels on many of these dyes, taking a more preventive approach to food safety.
Hashtags

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


ITV News
13 hours ago
- ITV News
Tesla ordered to pay $300 million to victims of Autopilot crash case
A court has ordered Elon Musk's car company to pay $329 million (£242 million) to victims of a deadly crash involving its Autopilot driver assist technology. The ruling in Miami on Friday opens the door to other costly lawsuits and potentially striking a blow to Tesla's reputation for safety. In 2019, a driver on a rural road in Florida was looking for a dropped mobile phone when he hit a young couple out gazing at the stars. On Friday, the jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its Autopilot technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on the driver. The decision on the four-year case comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own, as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Tesla's Autopilot technology has been significantly developed since the incident. The majority of similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed or settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included charges by lawyers for the family of the victim, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to release crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, lawyers showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and said it believed the data was not there.


The Guardian
16 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce' full of misinformation
A new Trump administration report which attempts to justify a mass rollback of environmental regulations is chock-full of climate misinformation, experts say. On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to undo the 2009 'endangerment finding', which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. Hours later, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 150-page report defending the proposal, claiming scientific concern about the climate crisis is overblown. 'Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe,' wrote the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in the report's introduction. Esteemed climate scientist Michael Mann said the report was akin to the result he would expect 'if you took a chat bot and you trained it on the top 10 fossil fuel industry-funded climate denier websites'. The DOE published the report hours after the EPA announced a plan to roll back 2009's 'endangerment finding', a seminal ruling that provided the legal basis for the agency to regulate climate-heating pollution under the Clean Air Act. If finalized, the move would topple virtually all US climate regulation. In a Fox News interview, Wright claimed the report pushes back on the 'cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science'. But Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University and expert in climate misinformation, said its true purpose is to 'justify what is a scientifically unjustifiable failure to regulate fossil fuels'. 'Science is the basis for climate regulation, so now they are trying to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,' she said. The attack on the research underpinning the endangerment finding – which says greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – comes as part of Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' agenda to boost fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming. 'This is an agenda to promote fossil fuels, not to protect public health and welfare or the environment,' said Rachel Cleetus, a director at climate and science non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists who was an author on the sixth US national climate assessment. Asked about scientists' assertions that the new report is rife with misinformation, a DOE spokesperson Ben Dietderich, said: 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous presidential administrations.' But the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces what is widely considered the gold standard compendium of climate science, compiled by a huge multinational team of scientists, peer reviewed and agreed to by every national government. The latest IPCC synthesis report, released two years ago, was a vast undertaking involving 721 volunteer scientists around the world. It states that it is 'unequivocal' that human activity has heated the planet, which has 'led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people'. By contrast, the Trump administration report was crafted by five handpicked scientists who are seen as having fringe or contrarian views by mainstream climate scientists, with no peer review. The experts behind the report have previously denied being climate deniers. The DOE did not respond to a question about the authors. 'This report had five authors and was rushed over four months, and would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer review process,' said Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at the climate non-profit Berkeley Earth, who called the paper a 'farce'. Wright, the energy secretary, insisted he had not steered the report's conclusions, while Judith Curry, one of the report authors, said in a blog post she hoped the document will push climate science 'away from alarmism and advocacy'. Mainstream climate scientists, however, condemned the findings as distorted and inaccurate. 'This is a report written by a couple of scientists who are outliers in their arguments for climate change,' said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University. 'This document does in no way depreciate the value of previous assessments, but rather just cherrypicks the literature to pretend to create a new review.' Mahowald said the lack of peer review means it's 'obviously not as robust' as the IPCC report or the US government's periodic national climate assessment, which the Trump administration recently took offline. The latest national climate assessment, compiled by a dozen government agencies and outside scientists in 2023, concluded that the 'effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States' 'If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different,' Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, said of the new report. 'The only way to get this report was to pick these authors.' Hausfather agreed that the authors' work 'might represent their views but is not consistent with the broader scientific literature on climate change'. He was among the scientists whose work the authors cited. The new paper includes a chart from a 2019 report which he led, claiming it demonstrates how climate models 'consistently overestimated observations' of atmospheric carbon. But Hausfather's research actually showed that climate models have performed well. 'They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,' he said. The DOE did not respond to a request for comment about Hausfather's concerns. That approach to research seems to underpin the entire paper, said Hausfather, who is also the climate research lead at tech company Stripe. 'This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,' he said. Dessler said scientists are obliged to engage with the full range of evidence, even if it contradicts their initial assumptions. Ignoring this principle 'can rise to the level of scientific misconduct', he said. 'The report they produced should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide,' Dessler said. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence.' The lack of peer review in the administration's report led to conclusions that deviated, sometimes wildly, from the scientific literature. Many of its claims are based on long-debunked research long promoted by climate deniers, said Mann. 'It is shop worn, decades-old, discredited climate denier talking points, dressed up in the clothing of some sensible new set of revelations,' he said. 'What's different is that it has the imprimatur of the EPA and the federal government now.' The report, for instance claims that warming trends have been overstated, despite evidence to the contrary. It was published as extreme heat is affecting millions of Americans. 'They're literally trying to tell us not to believe what we see with our own two eyes … and instead buy into their denialist framing that rejects not just the science, but what is plainly evident if you look out your window,' said Mann. The authors also write that ocean acidification is occurring 'within the range of natural variability' and beneficial for marine life despite the ocean's acidic levels currently being the highest since 14m years ago, a time when a major extinction event was occurring. And the report references the apparent health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which it says 'has shown considerable growth in recent years'. The reef was recently hit by its sixth mass bleaching event since 2016, a devastating phenomena for corals where they whiten and sometimes die due to high sea temperatures. No widespread bleaching events were recorded on the reef prior to 1998. The report is 'tedious' and at times 'truly wearisome', according to Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. Kopp recently worked on a paper showing how rising temperatures and drought will worsen crop yields, counter to the report's claims that crops will flourish with extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 'Carbon dioxide fertilization is largely irrelevant to how increasingly extreme heat and intense drought will impact crop yields,' Kopp said. 'As a former department of energy fellow, I'm embarrassed by this report.'


Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Eating one type of food linked to '41% higher cancer risk'
Scientists say restricting ultra processed foods (UPFs) - which include everything from sausages to fizzy drinks and sliced bread - could reduce cancer cases Eating more processed junk food has been linked to a 41% higher risk of cancer. An international research team tracked the health and diet of more than 100,000 Americans with an average age of 63 and looked at their chances of developing lung cancer. Over an average of 12 years 1,706 people developed the disease. People who consumed the highest amounts of Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs) were 41% more likely to develop lung cancer compared with those who consumed the least. The findings were adjusted to factor in whether or not people smoked tobacco. A quarter of cases occur in non-smokers. UPFs are food products that have undergone multiple industrial processes and contain ingredients not typically found in home cooking. Additives include preservatives, emulsifiers, artificial colours and flavours which are used to enhance taste, texture and prolong shelf life. The types of UPFs consumed most were processed meats like sausages and burgers as well as soft drinks. Author Dr Kanran Wang, of Chongqing University Cancer Hospital in China, said: "Although additional research in other populations and settings is warranted, these findings suggest the healthy benefits of limiting UPF. Limiting UPF intake globally could contribute to reducing the burden of lung cancer." Brits consume a greater proportion of UPFs than any nation apart from the US. Estimates suggest they make up more than half of the average UK citizen's diet. However most have no idea what this internationally recognised food category includes. Most supermarket sliced bread is a UPF as well as shop-bought sandwiches, wraps, pastries, instant noodles, crisps, formed ham, breakfast cereals, cheap yoghurts and ice cream. UPFs have unhealthy artificial additives to boost flavour and shelf life including emulsifiers, sweeteners, stabilising gums, flavour compounds and colouring agents. These are typically not used in home cooking but can be cheaper in mass produced food than natural ingredients. Previous research has suggested that people who eat more UPFs are 24% more likely to have a heart attack or stroke. Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world. And in 2020 alone there were an estimated 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths from the disease worldwide. The latest study drew on data from the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trials. Researchers focused in particular on UPF that included sour cream, as well as cream cheese, ice cream, frozen yoghurt, fried foods, bread, baked goods, salted snacks, breakfast cereals, instant noodles, shop-bought soups and sauces, soft drinks, sweetened fruit drinks, hamburgers, hot dogs and pizza. The average study participant had just under three servings of UPFs each day. Consumption ranged from half a portion a day in those who ate the least, up to six servings a day in those consuming the most UPFs. The authors said that they did make adjustments to their findings based on whether or not people smoked but they did not make adjustments for smoking intensity, which may have an impact on findings. It is an observational study so they point out that "causality cannot be determined". The results are published in the journal Thorax. Commenting, Prof Sam Hare, consultant radiologist at the Royal Free London NHS Trust, said: 'A quarter of lung cancer cases occur in non-smokers so we do need research exploring whether other factors are associated with lung cancer. We also know immunity is linked to cancer biology so it is a good idea to do research into factors like diet. However further work is needed to establish direct causation between UPFs and lung cancer.' Tom Sanders, Professor of Nutrition at King's College London, said: 'Unhealthy diets often go hand in hand with smoking habit and low socioeconomic status. There appears to be no plausible mechanism to explain why ultra processed food should affect risk of lung cancer.'