One in five U.S. food and beverage products is made with synthetic dyes
Odds are, something in your pantry is colored with petroleum.
Synthetic dyes — which give fruit snacks their bright colors and cereals their rainbow crunch — are embedded into the everyday foods that fill grocery store shelves, often in ways consumers don't realize. However, concern over their health effects has been growing in recent years, fueled by mounting evidence that certain synthetic dyes may harm children's long-term health.
A new study shows that the use of these chemicals in the manufacturing of foods and beverages in the U.S. is more widespread than many might expect. Nearly 1 in 5 food items and beverages sold in the U.S. contain synthetic dyes, and many of them are commonly marketed to children.
For many Americans, synthetic dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 5 have become invisible staples of their diet. These petroleum-derived additives are commonly added to processed food and beverages to increase visual appeal and maintain color consistency. However, emerging research has made it clear that they also increase the risk of a range of adverse neurobehavioral effects — to which children are especially susceptible.
A national study published Tuesday in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics looked at nearly 40,000 products produced by the top 25 U.S. food and beverage manufacturers, and found that synthetic food dyes were present in 19% of them.
The study also determined that products using synthetic dyes were significantly more likely to be high in added sugars and low in nutritional quality. Even more concerning, researchers found that 28% of the products in categories most commonly marketed to children, including breakfast cereals, candy and sugar-sweetened beverages, contained synthetic dyes.
Although the study focuses on the prevalence of synthetic dyes in U.S. food and beverages, Elizabeth Dunford, a lecturer at the University of New South Wales and co-author of the study, noted that its findings reinforce concerns among parents and public health experts about the potential neurological and behavioral effects of these additives.
A 2021 assessment from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that these additives can 'cause or exacerbate neurobehavioral problems in children.' Similarly, a 2022 review found that 52% of studies found a significant association between synthetic dye consumption and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both those with and without existing behavioral disorders.
These health concerns are not limited to behavioral problems. Red 3, for example, has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory rats, and Yellow 5 has been associated with allergic reactions in some individuals. However, despite decades of concern, current U.S. Food and Drug Administration registrations are still based on studies performed 35 to 50 years ago.
Read more: The FDA knew long ago that red dye No. 3 causes cancer. Why did it take so long to ban it?
In the recent study, the most common dyes that Dunford and her team found were Red 40, Yellow 5, and Blue 1, appearing in 14%, 11%, and 11% of products, respectively. Synthetic dyes were found in such products as blueberry bagels, guacamole, corn chips and hot dog buns — items that consumers might not expect them. 'Even as an educated person, I've been tricked,' Dunford said. 'Consumers can be misled … when there are all these claims on the front of the pack that say 'healthy' or 'made with real fruit juice,' but it still has dyes.'
The study found that foods and beverages containing synthetic dyes, on average, had 141% more sugar than dye-free products. The correlation between sugar and synthetic dyes was even more pronounced when it came to products marketed to kids: foods and beverages in the five categories most heavily marketed to children had a mean total sugar content of 42.6 grams per 100 grams — 264% higher than comparable products in other categories.
This marketing strategy, which pairs bright colors with high sugar content, may be part of the reason these foods are so appealing to kids.
But Dunford said that in her personal experience, children won't notice if they're given replacement options without those additives. When buying snacks for one of her kid's parties, she opted for a version of a common brand of corn chips with no synthetic dyes or preservatives. 'I gave them to kids at a party, and no one said anything.' Dunford said. 'This just goes to show that it's really the marketing that drives the desire for these products and causes the problems.'
Some steps have been taken to remove synthetic dyes from food and beverages. California banned Red 3 from all foods in 2023 and prohibited six other synthetic food dyes in foods sold in schools in 2024. More recently, in January of this year, the FDA announced that Red 3 will be banned nationwide in all food products by 2027. Warning labels are another potential option to limit synthetic dye consumption, and are being used in the European Union to identify foods containing Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6.
However, the burden still falls largely on consumers to scrutinize ingredient lists and marketing claims. For many families, that means navigating a colorful and oftentimes misleading food landscape, armed with little more than the fine print on the back of a box.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
32 minutes ago
- The Intercept
South Carolina Can Deny Medicaid Patients Planned Parenthood Care, SCOTUS Rules
The Supreme Court moved to limit access to health care for over 1.3 million South Carolinians on Thursday by allowing the state to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood. The tight restriction on reproductive rights will likely pave the way for similar bans in other states, as ongoing attacks on abortion providers further impinge on access to maternal, gynecological, and other basic forms of health care. In a 6-3 decision, the court determined that Planned Parenthood clinics and patients in South Carolina may not sue the state for denying Medicaid funding to the reproductive care provider. The ruling overturns repeated lower court decisions that affirmed Medicaid recipients' rights to visit a provider of their choosing that accepts the program. It comes against the backdrop of looming federal cuts to Medicaid, which would further restrict health care access for millions of low-income Americans. In South Carolina, abortion is already subjected to a near-total ban. State law prohibits abortion after six weeks with limited exceptions — which is often before someone would be aware that they're pregnant. Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has been direct about wanting to target Planned Parenthood because the network of clinics is known as an abortion provider. 'South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life,' McMaster said in a February statement. 'Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs.' The idea that Medicaid is subsidizing abortion care in South Carolina is incredibly misleading, said Susanna Birdsong, general counsel and vice president of compliance at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. 'Medicaid does not cover abortion except in very narrow circumstances of rape, incest in life of the pregnant person,' Birdsong said. 'That's been a federal rule since the 1970s.' Planned Parenthood provides care for a host of other sexual and reproductive wellness concerns — meaning that low-income South Carolinians will lose access to 'health care that has nothing to do with abortion,' Birdsong said. She pointed to things like testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and birth control. In its ruling, the Court made clear that it was aware of the other services Planned Parenthood provides. 'Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates two clinics in South Carolina, offering a wide range of services to Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients,' reads a summary of the decision. 'It also performs abortions.' The Court noted that Planned Parenthood and a patient sued under the any-qualified-provider provision, which allows Medicaid patients to seek care from a provider of their choosing, but the majority determined they did not necessarily have an 'enforceable' right to do so. Experts expect that this decision will open the floodgates for other states to pass similar bans, limiting access to the largest provider of reproductive and sexual health care in the United States for millions of lower-income Americans. 'Other states certainly have tried it before,' said Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and president of the nonprofit Physicians for Reproductive Health. 'Much in the same way that abortion bans really swept this country, I think we're going to see similar effects.' The decision to limit where Medicaid patients can access care disproportionately affects women of color, said Perritt. As of 2023, the majority of people enrolled in Medicaid in South Carolina were nonwhite, and roughly 39 percent of Medicaid enrollees were Black, according to health policy research nonprofit KFF. Even before the decision, access to health care — particularly reproductive and sexual health care — in South Carolina was a challenge for lower-income residents. Roughly 41 of the state's 46 counties are considered federally designated 'Health Professional Shortage Areas,' and Medicaid recipients are disproportionately likely to live in communities with provider shortages. 'We're talking about communities that are already marginalized from care, communities that already have disproportionately poor reproductive and sexual health outcomes,' said Perritt, who predicted the decision would have 'significant negative health consequences.' Aside from having one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, South Carolina is one of only 10 states not to expand Medicaid coverage since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. South Carolina also has the eighth-highest maternal mortality rate in the country, hovering around 47.2 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births, and some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections in the nation. 'It's really a state that should be investing more in its public health infrastructure and making sure that people who live in the state have access to the care that they need,' said Birdsong. Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights for State Innovation Exchange, said, like the state's abortion ban, lower-income people in South Carolina will bear the brunt of the burden of this decision. 'It targets people who are already limited on resources to say, 'You know what? On top of that, you actually don't get to have a decision on the care that you get and the provider you get it from,' she said. Read Our Complete Coverage At the same time, the Trump administration and Congress are seeking to further restrict health coverage for low-income Americans. A Congressional Budget Office report found that the House of Representatives' version of the 'Big, Beautiful, Bill' would leave 16 million Americans without health insurance and kick 7.8 million people off of Medicaid. Senate Republicans are considering their own set of Medicaid cuts, though they've been snarled by political opposition. 'This is a clear and obvious attack on people with low income, people who rely on Planned Parenthood clinics to get life-saving health services,' said Perritt. She described the decision as part of the government's broader efforts 'to eliminate access to comprehensive health care for folks, really across the country. This has to also be understood as an attack that reaches far beyond the borders of South Carolina.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Supreme Court clears way for states to kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. In a 6-3 decision divided along ideological lines, the court's majority concluded that federal law doesn't allow Medicaid patients to bring lawsuits alleging that their state has abridged their right to visit their preferred medical provider under the health insurance program for low-income Americans. The decision rejected a challenge to South Carolina's expulsion of Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. It will likely allow other conservative states to similarly expel reproductive and sexual health clinics from their Medicaid programs — shrinking the already narrow network of providers available to low-income patients. 'Defunding' Planned Parenthood is a goal of many conservatives, who object to its abortion services. Federal law has long banned federal money from being used for abortions. But Planned Parenthood clinics provide many other health care services that are typically eligible for payment under Medicaid. Thursday's ruling will make it easier for states to deprive Planned Parenthood — and other clinics that provide abortions — from receiving Medicaid payments for any of their other non-abortion-related care. The court's conservative majority ruled that while federal law guarantees Medicaid beneficiaries the right to see any 'qualified and willing' provider, the statute doesn't grant patients legal standing to sue if a state denies access to certain providers.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate struggle over Medicaid cuts threatens progress on Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — One key unsettled issue stalling progress on President Donald Trump's big bill in Congress is particularly daunting: How to cut billions from health care without harming Americans or the hospitals and others that provide care? Republicans are struggling to devise a solution to the health care problem their package has created. Already, estimates say 10.9 million more people would be without health coverage under the House-passed version of the bill. GOP senators have proposed steeper reductions, which some say go too far. 'The Senate cuts in Medicaid are far deeper than the House cuts, and I think that's problematic,' said GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Senators have been meeting behind closed doors and with Trump administration officials as they rush to finish up the big bill ahead of the president's Fourth of July deadline. Much of the package, with its tax breaks and bolstered border security spending, is essentially drafted. But the size and scope of healthcare cuts are among the toughest remaining issues. It's reminiscent of the summer during Trump's first term, in 2017, when Republicans struggled to keep their campaign promise to 'repeal and replace' the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, only to see the GOP splinter over the prospect of Americans losing health coverage. That legislation collapsed when then-Sen. John McCain famously cast a thumbs-down vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is determined to avoid that outcome, sticking to the schedule and pressing ahead with voting expected by the end of the week. 'This is a good bill and it's going to be great for our country,' Thune said Wednesday, championing its potential to unleash economic growth and put money in people's pockets. The changes to the federal health care programs, particularly Medicaid, were always expected to become a centerpiece of the GOP package, a way to offset the costs of providing tax breaks for millions of Americans. Without action from Congress, taxes would go up next year when current tax law expires. The House-passed bill achieved some $1.5 trillion in savings overall, a large part of it coming from changes to health care. The Medicaid program has dramatically expanded in the 15 years since Obamacare became law and now serves some 80 million Americans. Republicans say that's far too high, and they want to shrink the program back to a smaller size covering mainly poorer women and children. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Republicans are 'trying to take away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans.' Democrats are uniformly opposed to what they call the 'big, ugly bill.' Much of the health care cost savings would come from new 80-hour-a-month work requirements on those who receive Medicaid benefits, even as most recipients already work. But another provision, the so-called provider tax that almost all the states impose to some degree on hospitals and others that serve Medicaid patients, is drawing particular concern for potential cuts to rural hospitals. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said several senators spoke up Wednesday during a private meeting indicating they were not yet ready to start voting. 'That'll depend if we land the plane on rural hospitals,' he said. States impose the taxes as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics decry the system as a type of 'laundering' but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide the health care coverage. The House-passed bill would freeze the provider taxes at current levels, while the Senate proposal goes deeper by reducing the tax that some states are able to impose. 'I know the states are addicted to it,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. But he added, 'Obviously the provider tax needs to go away.' But a number of GOP senators, and the hospitals and other medical providers in their states, are raising steep concerns that the provider tax changes would decimate rural hospitals. In a plea to lawmakers, the American Hospital Association said the cuts won't just affect those who get health coverage through Medicaid, but would further strain emergency rooms 'as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people.' 'And worse, some hospitals, especially those in rural communities, may be forced to close altogether,' said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the hospital group. The Catholic Health Association of the United States noted in its own letter that Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for one in five people and nearly half of all children. 'The proposed changes to Medicaid would have devastating consequences, particularly for those in small towns and rural communities, where Medicaid is often the primary source of health care coverage,' said Sister Mary Haddad, the group's president and CEO. Trying to engineer a fix to the problem, senators are considering creating a rural hospital fund to help offset the lost Medicaid money. GOP senators circulated a proposal to pour $15 billion to establish a new rural hospital fund. But several senators said that's too high, while others said it's insufficient. Collins has proposed that the fund be set at $100 billion. 'It won't be that big, but there will be a fund,' Thune said. Hawley, who has been among those most outspoken about the health care cuts, said he's interested in the rural hospital fund but needs to hear more about how it would work. He has also raised concerns about a new $35 per service co-pay that could be charged to those with Medicaid, which is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. 'Getting the fund is good. That's important, a step forward,' Hawley said. But he asked: 'How does the fund actually distribute the money? Who will get it to hospitals? ... Or is this just going to be something that exists on paper?' A new analysis from the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates the package would result in up to $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, a markedly different assessment from other analyses. In contrast, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's dynamic analysis of the House-passed measure estimates an increase in deficits by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. __ Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Mary Clare Jalonick, Joey Cappelletti and Fatima Hussein contributed to this story.
