Editorial: Nothing fake about synthetic food dye health risks
U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, recently reintroduced the 'Do or Dye Act,' and it's a big deal. The bill, which picks up a key piece of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' playbook, wants to kick eight nasty petroleum-based food dyes — including Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Blue No. 1 — out of our snacks and cereals.
These are the same dyes linked to health risks, particularly in children, and they're already banned in several countries. Sure, RFK Jr. can be a lightning rod and some of his ideas are farfetched, but Democrats shouldn't bolt just because he's on board. This is a cause with history, science and voters on its side and it's one where both sides can actually agree.
The dangers of synthetic food dyes aren't new news. A 2021 California report tied them to hyperactivity and behavioral issues in kids. Some, like Red No. 3, have been flagged for cancer risks in animal studies. Since the 1950s, their use has skyrocketed 500%, a trend that has worried health experts.
Democrats have a track record of tackling this kind of thing: President John F. Kennedy tightened U.S. Food and Drug Administration rules in the '60s; the agency banned dyes like Red No. 1 over possible liver damage. In 1990, bipartisan support got Red No. 3 out of cosmetics. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, even signed a 2024 law banning six dyes in school lunches. This isn't a partisan issue — it's about keeping Americans, especially American kids, safe.
Yes, we know RFK Jr.'s name can make some Democrats twitch, especially with his history of vaccine skepticism which certainly misses the mark. But dismissing this dye ban because it aligns with his agenda would be throwing out a good idea for no reason.
The science is solid and the politics are too. A 2023 YouGov poll found 66% of Americans, including 62% of Democrats, want stricter rules on food additives. A 2024 Rasmussen Reports survey showed 71% of parents — across party lines — support banning dyes linked to health risks.
Democrats can score points here: Voters, especially younger ones and parents, are all in for cleaner food. In a 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 78% of Gen Z and Millennials said they'd back candidates prioritizing public health. Supporting Luna's bill is a no-brainer for Dems looking to connect with their base and swing voters.
Globally, the U.S. is behind the curve on this vital health issue. The European Union slaps warning labels on foods with Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6 for their impact on kids' behavior. Countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway have either banned these dyes or pushed companies to use natural options like beet juice or turmeric. Big brands like Kraft have already reformulated products for those markets, so why not here? Luna's bill sets a deadline of Dec. 31, 2026. We think that's a reasonable timeline for billion-dollar brands.
This would seem an especially ideal opportunity for Democrats, with their history of fighting for consumer safety, to join Republicans and score a bipartisan win for the wellbeing of all America — and help reestablish their consumer-oriented brand. The data's clear, the voters are on board, and other countries are already there. Indeed, a majority of states are already moving to impose artificial dye bans of their own and not just on food products.
The legislation may pose challenges for products like Lucky Charms breakfast cereal or Cheetos chips as they switch to more natural alternatives but that seems a small price to pay to address the various health threats associated with synthetic food dyes.
_____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
U.S. has "no interest" in putting troops on the ground in Iran, Vance says
Vice President Vance said Sunday that the United States doesn't plan to send ground troops into Iran and there is "no interest" in engaging in a "protracted conflict" with the nation. The big picture: Vance and other Trump administration officials appeared on Sunday shows to praise President Trump 's decision to carry out a series of airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites, while reassuring Americans that the mission — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — isn't the launching point for a wider conflict. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Vance called the mission a "precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest" — preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — and that he had "no fear" of a drawn-out conflict. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment on CBS' "Face the Nation," saying that there are no plans from the U.S. to engage in further attacks on Iran unless they "mess around" and attack Americans or U.S. military sites. What they're saying: Rubio said Sunday that the U.S. carried out the attack after efforts to negotiate with Iran stalled, but that Trump administration officials are "prepared to talk to them tomorrow." Both men also dismissed the notion that the U.S. is at war with Iran, with Vance stating that the war is with Iran's nuclear program. "We destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially," Vance told NBC News' Kristen Welker. Zoom out: Vance and Rubio were unable to confirm the extent of the damage done to the nuclear sites, but Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told CNN that the strike was a "betrayal of diplomacy." "No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel," he said. Bagahei refused to say how Iran might respond to the U.S. strike, but said the nation is entitled to "exercise its right of self-defense."
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Dem. Senator Adam Schiff says 'we simply don't know' if US is safer after Iran strikes
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff speaks to Kasie Hunt about the congressional response to President Trump's order to strike Iran.
Boston Globe
13 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble
The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. Advertisement For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Advertisement Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' Advertisement In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Advertisement Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. Advertisement That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
