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

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

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time Business News

32 minutes ago

• Time Business News

40% of Gen Z and Millennials Order Food Through Apps

With stronger ties to technology and fast-paced lifestyles, these generations are more likely to use delivery service The rise of food delivery in the United States is closely linked to younger Americans. This segment of the population is more connected and aware of the advantages of delivery, especially when it comes to convenience and practicality in everyday life. That's according to a YouGov survey on eating habits in the U.S. The study found that around 40% of Generation Z and Millennials use food delivery apps . By 2025, members of Generation Z will be between 16 and 29 years old, while Millennials will range from 29 to 44. With greater familiarity with technology, these generations tend to use digital delivery platforms more frequently. Overall, the data shows that 72% of Americans order food for delivery—whether weekly or less often. While younger generations are driving this behavior, older generations are less likely to use these services. Generation X, born between 1965 and 1980, makes up about 21% of delivery app users. Among Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, the number drops to just 10%, revealing a clear generational divide. Some of the reasons younger people prefer delivery include their comfort with digital tools and a fast-paced lifestyle that demands convenience and flexibility. The YouGov survey also identified the most commonly used delivery apps in the U.S., as well as the dominant generation among users of each: DoorDash : a well-established company in the sector, it's heavily used by Millennials and Gen Z. With more options than many competitors, it appeals to a wide audience thanks to its accessibility. Generation X also uses the app, though to a lesser extent. : a well-established company in the sector, it's heavily used by Millennials and Gen Z. With more options than many competitors, it appeals to a wide audience thanks to its accessibility. Generation X also uses the app, though to a lesser extent. Uber Eats : uber's food delivery arm is also more popular with younger users and sees less engagement from older age groups. : uber's food delivery arm is also more popular with younger users and sees less engagement from older age groups. Grubhub : founded more than two decades ago, it has a stronger presence among Millennials and Generation X. Generation Z users are fewer in number, with even Baby Boomers using it slightly more. : founded more than two decades ago, it has a stronger presence among Millennials and Generation X. Generation Z users are fewer in number, with even Baby Boomers using it slightly more. Postmates: although it has fewer users overall compared to competitors, it stands out for having more adoption among older generations than among Gen Z. A study by Mad Mobile explored generational food preferences and how they've evolved over time . Baby Boomers, for example, tend to embrace a more balanced lifestyle and value family meals. They're also concerned about well-being and enjoy trying new restaurants — around 62% say they like experimenting with new recipes occasionally. Generation X aims to balance work and personal life. Plant-based and healthy foods are gaining traction—76% say they value the inclusion of plant-based proteins in their diets. Among Millennials, a deeper connection with technology emerges. They often search for meals online, take photos of their food, and prioritize sustainability — 80% believe their quality of life improves with socially responsible eating habits. Gen Z is even more immersed in the digital world and is also focused on physical and mental health. More than half of the recipe content they consume comes from TikTok, for example. Fresh ingredients and ready-to-eat meal kits are especially popular, offering practical solutions for busy routines. These insights highlight how eating habits evolve over time, influenced by technology and cultural trends. According to recent data from Statista, the main reason Americans choose delivery is the comfort of eating at home — cited by 76% of respondents . Additionally, 49% say they order food to avoid cooking. Overall, convenience is the key driver, whether at home, work, or school. In response, the industry is investing in technological innovations that make delivery faster and more efficient. Artificial intelligence is also becoming more common, helping tailor services to individual customer preferences. To meet growing demand, new delivery hubs have been set up across the U.S. In this space, ghost kitchens are gaining traction — kitchens that operate solely for delivery, without a physical storefront, allowing for greater flexibility. Delivery has become a go-to solution for managing mealtimes amid busy schedules. With long work hours and limited free time, many people prefer to order food rather than cook or dine out. Food delivery apps continue to expand their offerings to cater to a wide range of consumer preferences. More restaurants are adding healthy and vegan-friendly options to their menus. As a result, both traditional restaurants and ghost kitchens are focusing on delivering meals that meet expectations for both quality and speed. Consumers want their delivered meals to match the in-restaurant experience. Looking ahead, delivery is expected to keep growing. Alongside Gen Z and Millennials, upcoming generations are likely to integrate technology even further into their daily lives, reinforcing digital tools as a key part of modern dining habits. TIME BUSINESS NEWS

Associated Press

34 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Support for solar energy and offshore wind falls among Democrats and independents, AP-NORC poll says

Americans' support for green energy tax credits and renewable energies like wind and solar power has decreased in recent years, according to a new poll, driven by a softening in support from Democrats and independents. The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that U.S. adults' support for tax credits for electric vehicles and solar panels has weakened, as well as their enthusiasm for offshore wind farm expansion. While Democrats remain the strongest supporters of these initiatives, the poll reveals signs of growing cynicism within their ranks. The poll results coincide with sweeping changes President Donald Trump's Republican administration is making to regulations related to energy and climate change, including slashing the federal workforce in these departments. And although Democrats and independents have weakened their support for some green energy initiatives, there has not been an increase in support for Trump's energy policies. The poll found only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults — including only 1 in 10 Democrats and about 2 in 10 independents, along with three-quarters of Republicans — approve of the way Trump is handling climate change, which largely tracks with his overall approval rating. Democrats and independents drive decline in support for renewable energy credits About 6 in 10 Democrats, 58%, favor tax credits for purchasing an electric vehicle, down from about 7 in 10 in 2022. Among independents, support declined from 49% in 2022 to 28%. Only one-quarter of Republicans supported this policy in 2022, and that hasn't changed measurably. 'As far as the pollution goes ... the vehicles nowadays put out very little emissions to the air,' said JD Johnson, a 62-year-old Democrat from Meadowview, Virginia, who somewhat opposes tax credits to purchase an electric vehicle. That's partly because he sees the electric vehicle manufacturing process as energy intensive and believes gasoline-powered vehicles have made improvements with the pollutants they emit. The decline in favoring solar panel tax credits was across the board rather than being concentrated among Democrats. 'For solar panels, in all honesty, I don't think they're that efficient yet,' said Glenn Savage, 78, a left-leaning independent from Rock Hill, South Carolina. 'I'd rather see them pour money into research and try to get the solar panels more efficient before they start giving tax breaks to the public. I may be wrong on that, but that's just my thought.' Scientists say transitioning to renewable energies and ditching fossil fuels that release planet-warming emissions are essential to protect the planet. Billions of dollars in project grants for clean technologies awarded during President Joe Biden's Democratic administration have been canceled by the Trump administration, and the offshore wind sector has been stunted by Trump's executive order that paused approvals, permits and loans for wind energy projects. Fewer than half of U.S. adults, 44%, now say that offshore wind farms should be expanded in the U.S., down from 59% in 2022. About half favor expanding solar panel farms, while about two-thirds were in support in 2022. When people are concerned about the economy and their personal finances, environmental issues are sometimes prioritized less, said Talbot Andrews, an assistant professor in the department of government at Cornell University who was not involved in the poll. 'I think it makes people anxious to think about increased taxes or increased spending on environmental issues when the cost of eggs are going through the roof,' Andrews said. Low support for Trump's efforts to expand offshore drilling and coal mining Trump has championed the expansion of offshore oil drilling, as well as domestic coal production. Despite a decline in support for expanded renewable energies, the new poll shows that only about one-third of U.S. adults think offshore drilling for oil and natural gas should be expanded in the U.S., and only about one-quarter say this about coal mining. In both cases, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to support expanding these energy sources. Trump has sought to open up national monuments for oil drilling, but more U.S. adults oppose than support auctioning off more public space for oil drilling. Only about one-quarter of U.S. adults favor this, while 4 in 10 are opposed. Republicans are much more likely than independents or Democrats to be in support. Bipartisan support for consumer rebates and home appliance ratings The Energy Star program that certifies appliances, such as dishwashers and refrigerators, as energy efficient recently appeared in headlines when the EPA made plans to scrap the program. The blue and white logo is well recognized, and experts say the program has long had bipartisan support until recently. The poll found three-quarters of Democrats support providing consumer rebates for efficient home appliances, compared with 6 in 10 Republicans. Patrick Buck, 54, from Chicago, describes himself as a liberal Republican and is a fan of the consumer rebates for energy-efficient appliances. 'It seems to work in terms of transforming what people have in their houses, because a lot of people have a lot of old appliances and just can't afford new ones,' he said. Safe air, water, meat and produce The poll found only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults are 'extremely' or 'very' confident in the federal government's ability to ensure the safety of their drinking water, the air they breathe and the meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables they buy in grocery stores. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults are 'somewhat' confident in the federal government's ability to ensure the safety of each of these, and about 4 in 10 are 'not very' or 'not at all' confident. The Trump administration has announced plans to roll back rules and policies related to limiting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, such as rules that limit pollution from power plants and blocking California's efforts to phase out cars that run on gas. The federal government has also cut staff at the Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency tasked with protecting public health and ensuring food supply safety. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

Yahoo

40 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals Completes Enrollment in SHASTA-3, SHASTA-4, and MUIR-3 Phase 3 Studies of Plozasiran

- Study completion anticipated in mid-2026 with subsequent data readout and regulatory submissions for treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia PASADENA, Calif., June 23, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARWR) today announced that it has completed enrollment in SHASTA-3, SHASTA-4, and MUIR-3, the company's global Phase 3 clinical studies designed to support regulatory submissions for marketing approval of investigational plozasiran in the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia. Arrowhead anticipates completing the primary portion of these studies in mid-2026 with topline data expected shortly thereafter and planned submissions for regulatory review and potential approval to follow. The company previously submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) for plozasiran based on positive Phase 3 PALISADE study results in patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome, which the U.S. FDA has accepted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) action date set for November 18, 2025. "Completion of enrollment for the SHASTA-3, SHASTA-4, and MUIR-3 studies represent important milestones for plozasiran," said Bruce Given, M.D., Chief Medical Scientist at Arrowhead. "These studies bring us closer to generating the datasets needed to support potential global regulatory submissions for plozasiran as a treatment for severe hypertriglyceridemia, pending positive results. With a primary endpoint focused on triglyceride reduction at 12 months, we remain on track for study completion by mid-2026. Arrowhead's clinical development, clinical operations, and regulatory teams continue to execute complex global clinical studies with speed and precision. We owe the entire team involved a debt of gratitude for efficiently initiating these studies in 24 countries and enrolling approximately 2,200 patients. We're grateful to the investigators, caregivers, and patients for participating in these clinical studies, and we thank them for their trust in Arrowhead and in plozasiran." About Severe Hypertriglyceridemia Severe hypertriglyceridemia (SHTG) is characterized by triglyceride (TG) levels greater than 500 mg/dL, with the most severe form being familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) where TGs typically exceed 880 mg/dL. SHTG significantly increases the risk of acute pancreatitis (AP), which can often include recurrent attacks requiring repeat hospital admissions and worsening outcomes. AP risk is proportional to the number, characteristics, and concentration of triglyceride rich lipoproteins (TRLs), particularly chylomicrons, and increases as TGs rise. Elevated TGs can also increase the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Limited treatment options exist to sustainably reduce TGs below guideline directed risk thresholds. About SHASTA-3 and SHASTA-4 Phase 3 Studies SHASTA-3 (NCT06347003) and SHASTA-4 (NCT06347016) are double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of plozasiran in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia. Between the two studies, approximately 750 participants were randomized to receive 4 doses (once every 3 months) of 25 mg plozasiran or placebo. The primary endpoint is percent change in fasting serum triglyceride levels from baseline to month 12 compared to placebo. After month 12, eligible participants will be offered an opportunity to continue in an optional open-label extension. About MUIR-3 Phase 3 Study MUIR-3 (NCT06347133) is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of plozasiran in adults with hypertriglyceridemia (TGs greater than 150 mg/dL and less than 500 mg/dL). Approximately 1,450 participants were randomized to receive 4 doses (once every 3 months) of 25 mg plozasiran or placebo. The primary endpoint is percent change in fasting serum triglyceride levels from baseline to month 12 compared to placebo. About Plozasiran Plozasiran, previously called ARO-APOC3, is a first-in-class investigational RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic designed to reduce production of apolipoprotein C-III (APOC3) which is a component of triglyceride rich lipoproteins (TRLs) and a key regulator of triglyceride metabolism. APOC3 increases triglyceride levels in the blood by inhibiting breakdown of TRLs by lipoprotein lipase and uptake of TRL remnants by receptors in the liver. The goal of treatment with plozasiran is to reduce the level of APOC3, thereby reducing triglycerides and restoring lipids to more normal levels. In multiple clinical studies, investigational plozasiran has demonstrated reductions in triglycerides and multiple atherogenic lipoproteins in patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS), severe hypertriglyceridemia (SHTG), and mixed hyperlipidemia. Plozasiran has been generally well tolerated to date with treatment emergent adverse events reported that generally reflect the comorbidities and underlying conditions of the study populations. Across clinical studies and study populations, the most frequently reported treatment emergent adverse events for the 25 mg dose that is proposed for marketing approval were COVID-19, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and abdominal pain. Plozasiran is being investigated in the SUMMIT program of clinical studies, including the PALISADE Phase 3 study in patients with FCS, the SHASTA studies in patients with SHTG, and the MUIR studies in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. Plozasiran in the treatment of patients with FCS has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Orphan Drug Designation, and Fast Track Designation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Orphan Medicinal Product Designation by the European Medicines Agency. Investigational plozasiran has been submitted for marketing authorization in treatment of FCS to multiple global regulatory authorities but has not been reviewed or approved to treat any disease. About Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines that treat intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them. Using a broad portfolio of RNA chemistries and efficient modes of delivery, Arrowhead therapies trigger the RNA interference mechanism to induce rapid, deep, and durable knockdown of target genes. RNA interference, or RNAi, is a mechanism present in living cells that inhibits the expression of a specific gene, thereby affecting the production of a specific protein. Arrowhead's RNAi-based therapeutics leverage this natural pathway of gene silencing. For more information, please visit or follow us on X (formerly Twitter) at @ArrowheadPharma, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. To be added to the Company's email list and receive news directly, please visit Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act: This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any statements contained in this release except for historical information may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, words such as "may," "might," "will," "expect," "believe," "anticipate," "goal," "endeavor," "strive," "hope," "intend," "plan," "project," "could," "estimate," "potential," "target," "forecast" or "continue" or the negative of these words or other variations thereof or comparable terminology are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. In addition, any statements that refer to projections of our future financial performance, trends in our business, expectations for our product pipeline or product candidates, including anticipated regulatory submissions and clinical program results, prospects or benefits of our collaborations with other companies, or other characterizations of future events or circumstances are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about the initiation, timing, progress and results of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and our research and development programs; our expectations regarding regulatory approval for and commercial launch of plozasiran; our expectations regarding the potential benefits of the partnership, licensing and/or collaboration arrangements and other strategic arrangements and transactions we have entered into or may enter into in the future; our beliefs and expectations regarding milestone, royalty or other payments that could be due to or from third parties under existing agreements; and our estimates regarding future revenues, research and development expenses, capital requirements and payments to third parties. These statements are based upon our current expectations and speak only as of the date hereof. Our actual results may differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking statements as a result of numerous factors and uncertainties, including the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, decisions of regulatory authorities and the timing thereof, the duration and impact of regulatory delays in our clinical programs, our ability to finance our operations, the likelihood and timing of the receipt of future milestone and licensing fees, the future success of our scientific studies, our ability to successfully develop and commercialize drug candidates, the timing for starting and completing clinical trials, rapid technological change in our markets, the enforcement of our intellectual property rights, and the other risks and uncertainties described in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time. We assume no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect new events or circumstances. Source: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. View source version on Contacts Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Anzalone, CFA626-304-3400ir@ Investors: LifeSci Advisors, LLCBrian Ritchie 212-915-2578britchie@ Media: LifeSci Communications, LLCKendy Guarinoni, Ph.D.724-910-9389kguarinoni@