Think groceries are already too expensive? Wait until RFK Jr.'s food-dye ban hits, experts say.

Yahoo

25-04-2025

Are you ready to fork over even more money for some of your favorite food products?
That could be the result of the newly announced Food and Drug Administration ban on the use of several petroleum-based synthetic dyes, according to food-industry professionals and others. The dyes are found in countless items on supermarket shelves, from Flamin' Hot Cheetos PEP to Froot Loops cereal KLG. Replacing them with natural dyes could add as much as 10% to manufacturing costs, experts told MarketWatch.
'I survived a head-on car wreck': I'm on Medicaid, but inheriting $290K. How do I protect it from the 5-year look-back rule?
'An argument ensued': My mother entrusted my inheritance to her second husband. It all went horribly wrong.
S&P 500's rapid exit from correction territory hinged on Trump's walk-backs of tariffs and Fed fight
'She's kept him afloat': I'm 78 and leaving my daughter, 41, my life savings, but her partner is a mooch. How can I protect her?
A cruel summer looms, but here's why JPMorgan still expects a higher S&P 500 finish this year
Consumers will likely be the ones to pay that extra amount, experts add. And it's an increase that could come after the inflationary hikes in recent years: Food costs rose 23.6% from 2020 to 2024, according to U.S. government data.
'It's a double whammy,' said Bryan Quoc Le, a food scientist and founder of Mendocino Food Consulting.
In terms of the raw dollars, the extra costs could really add up. In a column for The Hill website, data scientist Liberty Vittert said American households might be looking at as much as a $5,000 to $9,000 hit — though Vittert based those calculations on far more than a 10% hike, claiming it was possible.
Vittert also made the point that Americans may pay a price in other ways, noting that costs related to the switch in food coloring will rise for school-lunch programs, which are taxpayer-funded.
'I am very afraid of the unintended consequences and potentially devastating effects that these food-dye bans will have on the pocketbooks of Americans who, frankly, cannot afford it,' Vittert wrote.
FDA officials and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have emphasized that the phased-out banning of synthetic dyes — which include Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, and Blue No. 2 — is necessary for our health and safety.
'These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children's health and development,' Kennedy said in a statement.
FDA Commissioner Marty Makary also noted that requiring the use of natural dyes in place of artificial ones is already standard in Europe and Canada.
As it is, three U.S. states — California, Virginia and West Virginia — have already passed measures banning some synthetic dyes, and many others are considering similar legislation.
Natural dyes are pricier to use for a variety of reasons, experts explain. Begin with this: Food-product formulations can require a far greater quantity of a natural dye versus a synthetic one to achieve the same coloring effect. Then, add in the fact that products made with natural dyes tend to be less shelf-stable, which can mean more frequent production runs.
Natural dyes also require refrigeration, which is not the case with their synthetic counterparts, according to James Herrmann, marketing director for Sensient Colors, a division of food-technology company Sensient Technologies. In turn, that could mean added transportation and storage costs.
'All of this has to be figured out,' said Herrmann of the broader financial challenges of switching from synthetic to natural dyes.
Yet another wrinkle for food manufacturers is that they will all be clamoring to purchase a high volume of natural dyes from suppliers at once as a result of the switch, experts say. That won't exactly make for a favorable pricing situation from a supply-and-demand perspective.
Nevertheless, some organizations that monitor food safety applaud the decision to ban synthetic dyes.
'The dyes serve no purpose beyond making ultraprocessed food brighter and more appealing. And they're linked to serious health harms, including neurobehavioral problems in children,' said the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in a statement.
Moreover, Melanie Benesh, the EWG's vice president for government affairs, said dye costs aren't a major factor in food pricing.
'The cost of a product's ingredients is a tiny part of what you pay when you buy it at the store,' she said. 'Labor, energy, marketing and transportation are the real drivers of food prices — not swapping out toxic food dyes for safer alternatives.'
MarketWatch reached out to several major food manufacturers regarding the government-mandated ban on the synthetic dyes. Of those who responded, none addressed the cost issue, but they did say they were working to meet the government's goals.
'We recently met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy and had a very constructive conversation,' cereal maker WK Kellogg said in a statement. 'We understand the agency's priority for more simple foods, and we are pleased to share that we are already taking action in this area.'
A spokesperson for General Mills GIS said: 'The vast majority of General Mills's products are already free from certified colors. As a leader in food, we strongly support a national, industrywide standard, and we're committed to continuing the conversation with the administration.'
Experts acknowledge that many consumers do want foods free of artificial dyes. But they also want foods that look attractive — we eat with our eyes first, we often hear — so you can't ignore the role that color plays.
The question is: Will consumers pay more for the natural alternative?
Renee Leber, a food scientist with the Institute of Food Technologists, thinks lines may be drawn when it comes to value-priced brands and products, since consumers are looking to them to save money. If those items become more expensive, they may lose that 'value' halo and be less appealing, she explained.
Which means some products may disappear from store shelves altogether, according to Leber, because the math no longer makes sense for manufacturers to produce them — that is, they'll cost more to make, but consumers won't pay the price difference.
Or manufacturers may find ways to cut costs, Leber noted. For example, they could be less exacting when it comes to aspects of how their products appear beyond color.
Think about your morning bowl of cereal, she said: 'You can have more broken pieces' in it.
'I'm literally afraid to look at my balance': I have $300K in a 2025 target-date fund. Is there a chance it will recover?
'We are shocked and upset': My mother died and her second husband said he now owns everything. Is this true?
The buying opportunity of a lifetime is coming. But not before a 40% drop for the S&P 500, says this strategist.
'I am suspicious': My father died, leaving me $250,000. My brother says it's all gone. What can I do?
10 'pure value' stocks favored by analysts to soar 20% to 96% over the next year