I agree with RFK Jr.'s food dye ban. Indiana should lead it.
No parent should need a chemistry degree to read food labels or worry that candy will lead to classroom meltdowns.
| Contributing Columnist
Initially, I was skeptical when Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Mehmet Oz, and Gov. Mike Braun held a press conference at the Indiana State Library. I appreciated the 'Make Indiana Healthy Again' slogan, but it didn't strike me as serious. The optics felt more like a campaign rally than a credible public health initiative.
But, about a week later, RFK Jr. formally announced a proposal to phase out eight artificial food dyes in the U.S. It is the kind of common sense move our leaders on both sides should be making.
Artificial dyes like Red 40 and Yellow 5 are linked to serious issues. Research published in 2021 found that artificial food dyes increase hyperactivity in 10% to 20% of children with ADHD. They can also trigger allergic reactions and behavioral problems in sensitive kids.
These dyes are purely cosmetic, making snacks more colorful but offering zero nutritional value. Europe banned or labeled many of these dyes years ago. Yet, in the U.S., they are still found in everything from cereal to school lunches.
U.S. companies already make dye-free products for international markets but do not offer them here. This double standard puts corporate convenience over American children's health. Some critics argue that reformulation raises costs, but natural ingredients add less than 2% to production expenses, and targeted subsidies, as seen in the EU, can help ease consumer prices.
Holding food companies accountable is good governance. No parent should need a chemistry degree to read food labels or worry that candy will lead to classroom meltdowns.
Indiana has a major stake in this. Our childhood obesity rate reached 17.8% in 2023, which is among the highest in the nation, with processed food as a key contributor. ADHD diagnoses are climbing, too, now affecting 12% of Hoosier children. In many rural and lower income communities, families turn to low-cost processed foods because healthier choices are simply out of reach.
But there is also opportunity. Indiana's $16 billion agriculture industry could grow by an estimated $500 million annually by supplying clean, additive-free foods. Our farmers are ready to meet the moment. With the right support, we can align economic growth with better health and do it in a way that reflects Indiana's conservative values: protecting kids, empowering parents and ensuring transparency.
RFK Jr.'s plan is a strong start. Indiana can lead by taking these steps:
Subsidize organic produce: Allocate $2 million annually to help farmers grow organic fruits and vegetables, prioritizing SNAP accessible stores.
Ban harmful additives: Prohibit the eight targeted dyes within 24 months.
Require clear labeling: Mandate bold warnings on dyed foods.
Fund mobile markets: Launch mobile markets in food desert counties, such as Jay and Perry, with a strict implementation timeline.
Offer tax breaks: Provide 5% tax credits to companies that reformulate products without dyes.
Support local farmers: Grant $1 million annually to small farms transitioning to clean food production.
Boost nutrition education: Integrate healthy eating into Indiana school curricula.
Indiana was the first state to seek to restrict soda and candy purchases under SNAP. Now, let's be the first to implement a comprehensive, forward-looking plan to eliminate artificial dyes.
Phasing out artificial dyes may be the lowest hanging fruit in American health policy, and it offers a rare opportunity for real bipartisanship on an issue that affects everyone.
Dr. Raja Ramaswamy is an Indianapolis-based physician and the author of "You Are the New Prescription."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Our film imagined a post-Roe nightmare. Then it came true
When I first met Amy in the emergency room, she had a minor laceration on her finger. She claimed it was from an accident in the kitchen, but her cowering posture, downcast eyes and hesitant responses to basic questions suggested there was more to her visit than she was letting on. Amy reminds me of the girls I grew up with. Delicate, but exhausted and under pressure. She works long hours at a convenience store with a manager who offers no flexibility. Determined to save enough for college classes toward her degree, Amy has also shouldered the responsibility of supporting her mother, who has grown dependent on painkillers. She cleans homes to cover unexpected expenses, like becoming pregnant after a condom broke during sex, but she was unable to scrape together enough cash to purchase the morning-after pill. On June 3, the Trump administration revoked guidance that required hospitals to provide emergency abortions for patients in need. This national directive was issued in 2022 by the Biden administration, using the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and it was intended to assist women facing medical emergencies and other serious complications. The Trump administration's action is just the latest salvo in an ongoing battle, one in which reproductive freedom seems to be losing ground every day. The mood, among both doctors and patients, is one of persistent uncertainty and fear. Here in the emergency room, Amy and I both feel it. The cut on Amy's finger was a ruse — a desperate act to access care. She is pregnant and doesn't want to be. But in our state, abortion is illegal. As an emergency physician, I tell her – quietly – that if she travels to another state, she can receive proper care. She'll need to budget a certain amount of cash for travel expenses. We keep this conversation between us. The possibility of this scene has become all too familiar a worry in real life, but the truth is that Amy isn't real. And I'm not really an emergency physician, I just play one in a movie. A few months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, while we were both still attending journalism school at New York University, my friend Nate Hilgartner approached me about a film he wanted to write and direct about the ethical implications of a post-Roe world. He had me in mind to play a doctor in a rural town torn between her duty to help her patient and the imperative to obey restrictive new laws. It would be an American horror story, he told me. At the time, it seemed prophetic but impossible, a bit of artful exaggeration to warn against a dystopian tendency. Today, it's our reality, and in some ways, things are worse. The consequences of a woman not receiving the reproductive healthcare of her choice could lead someone like our fictional protagonist to lose her ability to create a life on her own terms, trapping her in a cycle of poverty with a lack of education. In Georgia, a pregnant woman who has been declared brain-dead is being kept on life support until her baby can be delivered. Across the country, women have been turned away from emergency rooms after suffering ectopic pregnancies, which require an emergency abortion to prevent potentially fatal outcomes. Doctors have been reprimanded and fined, including Caitlin Bernard, an OB-GYN from Indiana, who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim denied an abortion in Ohio. Three years ago, all of this would have sounded like fiction, a fever-dream storyline out of The Handmaid's Tale. An investigation by ProPublica in December 2024 revealed that doctors in states with abortion bans often feel abandoned by lawyers and hospital leaders when seeking guidance on how to proceed with patients in emergencies. Since information about managing the bans in each state have been provided only on a 'need-to-know' basis, many doctors are left to navigate alternative options on their own, with some becoming too afraid to offer care, fearing professional and personal consequences. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.) described the situation as doctors 'playing lawyer' and lawyers 'playing doctor,' leaving pregnant women facing life-or-death situations caught in the middle. Experts warn that the decision to eliminate access to emergency life-saving abortions will further exacerbate the crisis for doctors. The Trump administration's order to revoke emergency abortions sends a clear message to women who lack adequate resources to afford proper care. EMTALA, enacted in 1986, was designed to protect patients and ensure they receive stabilizing emergency care, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. While all pregnant women benefited from this law, it now appears that only those with sufficient health care and life circumstances will be able to survive potential emergencies. I am a writer and an actor, not a doctor. But for a time I imagined what it was like to be seated across from a woman scared and uncertain about the choices she could make about her body. Amy may not be real, but her plight is. Many of us may not admit it, but we've had our scares, moments where we've had to seriously consider the possibility of what we'd do if confronted with a pregnancy we weren't ready to have. At an age where I contemplate my own reproductive future, I am given pause: How can anyone assume there will never be complications in their pregnancy? Stories like Amy's aren't just about the right to make decisions about our bodies; they're also about the painful truth that those choices often come with a cost. When we set out to make this film, No Choice, we hoped to imagine a plausible future — not to prophesy our present reality. We could never have predicted just how quickly real-world headlines would not only validate our story, but outpace its darkest possibilities. Making a film was just one of many actions we hope other people will take to challenge the belief that a woman's body belongs to the state, not to herself. No Choice premieres in Los Angeles at the Dances With Films festival on June 23 — just one day shy of the third anniversary marking the fall of Roe v. Wade.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports
The Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document that cited disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News The document was written in support of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of PediatricsThe Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal vaccine recommendations that cited unpublished or disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News. In late May, Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism, announced on X that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, while touting President Trump's Make America Healthy Again agenda. "It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there," Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, told KFF Health News, the outlet that obtained the FAQ document. The outlet also reported that the document suggests a link between heart conditions like myocarditis or pericarditis and the COVID vaccine, but updated research suggests that connection has decreased with newer vaccine procedures. The document also left out multiple other peer-reviewed studies that show the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after getting sick with COVID for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone, per KFF Health News. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science," a HHS spokesperson told KFF Health News. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told KFF Health News. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Read the original article on People
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports
The Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document that cited disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News The document was written in support of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of PediatricsThe Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal vaccine recommendations that cited unpublished or disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News. In late May, Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism, announced on X that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, while touting President Trump's Make America Healthy Again agenda. "It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there," Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, told KFF Health News, the outlet that obtained the FAQ document. The outlet also reported that the document suggests a link between heart conditions like myocarditis or pericarditis and the COVID vaccine, but updated research suggests that connection has decreased with newer vaccine procedures. The document also left out multiple other peer-reviewed studies that show the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after getting sick with COVID for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone, per KFF Health News. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science," a HHS spokesperson told KFF Health News. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told KFF Health News. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Read the original article on People
