Latest news with #RobertF.KennedyJr.
Politico
5 hours ago
- Health
- Politico
RFK Jr.'s past claims shadow vaccine panel agenda
Presented by With help from Amanda Chu and Danny Nguyen Driving the Day ACIP AGENDA CHANGE — The agenda for next week's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting includes some notable differences from the notice posted in the Federal Register earlier this month, Sophie reports with POLITICO's Lauren Gardner. Most notably, the panel will hold two separate votes for the flu shot: one on influenza vaccines and another on influenza vaccines that contain thimerosal. In 2014, before he became health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a book in which he alleges the vaccine preservative thimerosal likely caused autism and should be banned — a claim that health agencies now under his control have said is unfounded. Thimerosal continues to be used as a preservative in multidose vaccine vials to inhibit germ growth. But its use in FDA-licensed flu vaccines has declined over the past 25 years as manufacturers reformulated their products and shifted to single-use vials. Most of those contain little or no thimerosal, according to the CDC. The meeting marks the first for Kennedy's revamped ACIP roster — following the firing of the previous 17 members — which includes several vaccine skeptics. No Covid vote: The agenda does not include a vote on Covid-19 vaccines, despite the Federal Register notice saying a vote is planned. Last month, Kennedy updated the CDC's Covid recommendations without a vote from the panel, breaking from tradition. Kennedy removed the recommendation that pregnant women get the shot, and the CDC changed the recommendation for healthy children to 'shared clinical decision making' — meaning children 'may' get vaccinated if their doctors and parents want them to. The HPV vaccine and meningococcal vaccine were also slated for a vote according to the meeting's Federal Register notice but aren't included in the draft agenda. Cut short? The agenda for the advisory committee's meeting includes only two days, June 25 and 26, but the initial Federal Register notice said the panel would also meet on June 27. A spokesperson for HHS did not comment on the thimerosal vote or why the agenda for the 27th wasn't included. WELCOME TO FRIDAY PULSE. For more on what next week's ACIP agenda holds, keep reading. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @Kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. Vaccines 'THEY CROSSED THE LINE' — Dr. Fiona Havers, a CDC scientist who collected and compiled data on Covid-19 and respiratory syncytial virus before stepping down this week, told POLITICO that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s overhaul of the agency's outside panel of vaccine experts was her final straw. 'I knew at that point that they had crossed the line,' Havers said. 'As a physician and a scientist, and for my own personal integrity, I did not feel like I could stay and legitimize this process.' The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices votes on vaccine recommendations, playing an integral role in developing childhood and adult vaccine schedules. Last week, Kennedy fired the entire panel and replaced them with members he hand-selected. The first meeting of the new members is scheduled for next week. Havers often presented data to the panel to inform its decisions. I spoke with Havers about her decision to resign and what she will be watching for at next month's meeting. Here's our conversation, edited for length and clarity. What made you resign? [It was a] culmination over the last one to two months of RFK Jr. trashing the vaccine policy recommendation process at CDC. This has been building for a while. Several events have really undermined the vaccine policy process. One was in late May, when FDA officials released this regulatory framework suggesting that only those 65 years older and people with underlying medical conditions should receive [updated] Covid-19 vaccines. Then the following week, the HHS secretary announced on X that the Covid vaccines for healthy children and healthy pregnant women had been removed from the CDC recommended vaccine immunization schedule … Basically, RFK Jr. was making CDC vaccine policy on X without involving CDC. And that was pretty shocking, because there's a very rigorous process in place. Then last week, when they announced the firing of all 17 ACIP members, I knew I was done. Can you share any thoughts on Kennedy's replacement picks? These people are, for the most part — with very few possible exceptions — not the people that should be sitting on ACIP. What will you be watching at the meeting next week? If CDC is presenting the data … the data coming out of CDC is still solid. As of now, I can speak to the fact that the COVID-NET and RSV-NET data is high-quality evidence and can be believed. How those data get used to make vaccine policy decisions is really what's in question right now. Seeing the kind of questions that they ask and what they say may give some clue as to how they may vote in the future. I am very concerned that there's going to be a restricting of access to vaccines for people that otherwise should be getting them, and we'll get some sense of if that's actually going to happen. HHS response: HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told POLITICO that HHS is 'committed to following the gold standard of scientific integrity,' and 'vaccine policy decisions will be based on objective data, transparent analysis and evidence — not conflicts of interest or industry influence.' AROUND THE AGENCIES GAIN-OF-FUNCTION CUTS — The National Institutes of Health is cutting and suspending funding for gain-of-function research, a move that will impact biomedical projects conducted globally, Danny reports. The NIH's directive, released Wednesday, will immediately terminate funding and other support for gain-of-function research conducted by 'foreign entities in countries of concern or foreign countries where there is no adequate oversight.' The order didn't explicitly name the targeted groups and countries. The NIH did not respond to a request for comment. The agency will also suspend funding and additional support for all other gain-of-function research and has asked researchers who receive NIH funds to identify other projects not yet identified by the agency that fit the category by June 30. Gain-of-function research involves genetically altering biological organisms to enhance transmission or other functions, which can help scientists identify therapeutic targets. Key context: The move comes months after the Trump administration marked gain-of-function research as dangerous. Earlier this year, the administration said the Covid pandemic was caused by a lab leak from gain-of-function research at a virology research institute in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the virus first appeared. Many scientists, however, believe the disease was caused by natural spillover from an animal to a human. The Trump administration's theory, memorialized in a glossy website unveiled in April, prompted President Donald Trump to issue an executive order last month to eliminate federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries such as China, which Trump has criticized for inadequate research oversight. The NIH's latest missive delivers on this executive order. In other research news: The FDA announced Wednesday it would immediately review new clinical trials that 'involve sending American citizens' living cells to China and other hostile countries for genetic engineering and subsequent infusion back into U.S. patients — sometimes without their knowledge or consent.' The order, endorsed by the NIH, is another swipe at foreign research — particularly studies performed in China, which the administration has characterized as poorly regulated. Industry Intel BURR'S LOBBYING GIG — The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the world's largest biotech organization, has tapped former Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to lobby on issues related to drug pricing and supply chains, Medicare and Medicaid and reauthorization of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, Amanda reports. Now health policy chair at law firm DLA Piper, Burr was the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and was a champion of reforming the FDA. Jamie Gregorian, a former senior policy adviser at the FDA and assistant to Burr in the Senate, will also represent BIO at DLA Piper, according to the law firm's disclosure submitted today. The outside hire from BIO marks the third for the group this year and comes as the biotech industry faces a steep drop in investor funding amid President Donald Trump's cuts to regulatory agencies. Earlier this week, BIO hired former Trump White House adviser Matt Mowers and Trump's campaign deputy director Bill Killion, who both now work at Valcour, a Washington-based lobbying firm. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Jordain Carney and Robert King report that Senate Republican leaders are seeking ways to tamp down moderates' worries about the megabill's possible impact on rural hospitals. The New York Times' Roni Caryn Rabin reports on the Trump administration's travel restrictions impacting medical residents.
Axios
9 hours ago
- Health
- Axios
Axios-Ipsos poll: Americans embracing food regulation
Americans broadly support some of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s food regulation agenda — from removing artificial dyes to increasing safety and labeling — though they distrust Kennedy 2-to-1, according to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index. The big picture: 87% of respondents said the government should do more to make food safe through guidelines, labeling or reduced pesticide exposure. Six in 10 want to remove artificial dyes from foods — some entirely and some as long as it doesn't significantly impact food costs and looks. Seven in 10 want to strengthen food safety inspections. Why it matters: These ideas are drawing support largely across partisan lines, despite politicization and many consumers' tendencies to act counter to their stated interests. Just 31% of Americans say they trust health information from Kennedy. Just 23% say they regularly eat organic fruits or vegetables. Half said they've eaten fast food or processed food at least a few days in the past week. What they're saying: "When you strip away all of the politically charged rhetoric… there is a lot of alignment," said Mallory Newall, Ipsos vice president for U.S. public affairs. "But framing and language matter," Newall said. "In theory, there is agreement that our food guidelines need to be updated and made safer for us. But there's a certain level of distrust across the board on how the government actually is going about this. And I do think it's being politicized." By the numbers: 47% of Republican respondents said they favor removing all artificial dyes from foods, even if it makes foods cost more — compared with 42% of independents and 26% of Democrats. 23% of Republicans, 18% of independents and 28% of Democrats favored removing some artificial dyes but wanted to minimize changes to food costs and appearances. Others favored food labeling that lets consumers decide, or said they didn't know or wanted no change. 48% respondents overall think U.S. health policies should focus primarily on healthy foods and lifestyles and disease prevention while 27% say they should primarily be around research to develop new drugs and treatments. That compared to 41% and 38%, respectively, when we asked the question at the beginning of March. And 7 in 10 Americans strongly or somewhat agree with the statement American children are on too many prescription drugs. Respondents were almost evenly split on whether COVID-19 booster vaccines are safe for pregnant women. But a majority (54%) said they don't trust the current COVID-19 vaccine recommendations set by the federal government, which exclude healthy pregnant women. Methodology: This Axios/Ipsos Poll was conducted June 13-16, 2025, by Ipsos' KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,104 general population adults age 18 or older.
NBC News
a day ago
- Health
- NBC News
CDC's vaccine panel to take up longtime target of anti-vaccine groups
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisers meet next week, but their agenda suggests they'll skip some expected topics — including a vote on Covid-19 shots — while taking up a longtime target of anti-vaccine groups. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations on how to use the nation's vaccines, setting a schedule for children's vaccines as well as advice for adult shots. Last week, Kennedy abruptly dismissed the existing 17-member expert panel and handpicked eight replacements, including several anti-vaccine voices. The agenda for the new committee's first meeting, posted Wednesday, shows it will be shorter than expected. Discussion of Covid shots will open the session, but the agenda lists no vote on that. Instead, the committee will vote on fall flu vaccinations, on RSV vaccinations for pregnant women and children and on the use of a preservative named thimerosal that's in a subset of flu shots. It's not clear who wrote the agenda. No committee chairperson has been named and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not comment. Committee won't take up HPV or meningococcal vaccines Missing from the agenda are some heavily researched vaccine policy proposals the advisers were supposed to consider this month, including shots against HPV and meningococcal bacteria, said Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Instead, the committee is talking about subjects 'which are settled science,' she said. 'Every American should be asking themselves how and why did we get here, where leaders are promoting their own agenda instead of protecting our people and our communities,' she said. She worried it's 'part of a purposeful agenda to insert dangerous and harmful and unnecessary fear regarding vaccines into the process.' The committee makes recommendations on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. The recommendations traditionally go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. Historically, nearly all are accepted and then used by insurance companies in deciding what vaccines to cover. But the CDC has no director and the committee's recommendations have been going to Kennedy. Thimerosal is a longtime target of anti-vaccine activists Thimerosal was added to certain vaccines in the early 20th century to make them safer and more accessible by preventing bacterial contamination in multi-dose vials. It's a tiny amount, but because it's a form of mercury, it began raising questions in the 1990s. Kennedy — a leading voice in an anti- vaccine movement before he became President Donald Trump's health secretary — has long held there was a tie between thimerosal and autism, and also accused the government of hiding the danger. Study after study has found no evidence that thimerosal causes autism. But since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. Thimerosal now only appears in multidose flu shot vials, not the single-shot packaging of most of today's flu shots. Targeting thimerosal would likely force manufacturers to switch to single-dose vials, which would make the shots 'more expensive, less available and more feared,' said Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Doctors' groups have opposed Kennedy's vaccine moves Last week, 30 organizations called on insurers to continue paying for Covid vaccines for pregnant women after Kennedy said the shots would no longer be routinely recommended for that group. Doctors' groups also opposed Kennedy's changes to the vaccine committee. The new members he picked include a scientist who researched mRNA vaccine technology and became a conservative darling for his criticisms of Covid vaccines, a top critic of pandemic-era lockdowns and a leader of a group that has been widely considered to be a source of vaccine misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long put out its own immunization recommendations. In recent decades it has matched what the government recommended. But asked if they might soon diverge, depending on potential changes in the government's vaccination recommendations, Kressly said; 'Nothing's off the table.' 'We will do whatever is necessary to make sure that every child in every community gets the vaccines that they deserve to stay healthy and safe,' she said.
Atlantic
a day ago
- Health
- Atlantic
The Future of the HPV Vaccine Is Up in the Air
Until last week, the future of vaccination for human papillomavirus, or HPV, in the United States seemed clear. For several years, a growing body of evidence has suggested that just a single dose of the vaccine may be as effective as two are, offering decades of protection against the virus, which is estimated to cause roughly 700,000 cases of cancer each year. More than 50 other countries have already adopted the one-dose schedule, and many experts hoped that the U.S. might follow suit this year. The decision rests, primarily, on the deliberations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a vaccine-advisory committee to the CDC. ACIP was initially expected to put to a vote, as early as next week, the questions of HPV-vaccine dosing and, simultaneously, whether to strengthen the recommendations that advise vaccination starting at 9 years of age. Several experts told me that they had tentatively expected both motions to pass, making HPV vaccination easier, cheaper, and quicker. The HPV vaccine is one of the most powerful vaccines ever developed: It is unusual among immunizations in that it durably prevents infection and disease at rates close to 100 percent. If it was deployed more widely, 'we could see the end of cervical cancer,' Kirthini Muralidharan, a global-health expert and HPV-vaccine researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me. That was before Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation's health secretary, abruptly dismissed all 17 members of ACIP. Among their replacements—each apparently handpicked by Kennedy—are several researchers who have spread misinformation about vaccines or been embroiled in litigation against vaccine manufacturers; at least one of the new members has exaggerated the harms of the HPV vaccine specifically. Now the anticipated votes on the vaccine, among other immunizations, have been removed from the proposed agenda for ACIP's coming meeting, leaving the fate of the vaccine far murkier. ACIP has, for decades, been one of the world's most respected expert panels on vaccines. The group's charter is to rigorously evaluate the evidence on the immunizations that the FDA has green-lighted. The advice it gives the CDC then helps devise the official immunization schedule that guides how insurers cover vaccines, how states mandate immunizations in schools, and how primary-care physicians advise their patients. Only under the rarest of circumstances has a CDC director rejected the committee's advice. Effectively, the members of ACIP 'decide who gets the vaccine, at what age, and how many doses,' Noel Brewer, a vaccine expert and health-behavior researcher at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, who served on ACIP until last week, told me. The group's rigorous, data-driven approach is a primary reason the HPV-dosing strategy has yet to change. In particular, the committee was awaiting formal results from a large clinical trial in Costa Rica that has been comparing dosing strategies in adolescent girls. So far, the data, recently presented at a cancer conference, suggest that one dose is just as effective as two, the current CDC-backed regimen. Earlier this year, the ACIP working group focused on HPV vaccines was leaning toward supporting the dose drop, Brewer, who was part of that group, told me. The proposal to routinely recommend the vaccine as early as 9 years of age, he added, seemed likely to pass, too. (Currently, the CDC allows for HPV vaccination as early as 9 years of age, but only actively recommends it starting at 11 years of age.) Those amendments to HPV-vaccination guidelines would make the shot simpler to get, for a wider range of children—which could dramatically increase its uptake, Gretchen Chapman, a health-psychology researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, told me: 'The more you can make getting vaccinated easy and convenient, the higher vaccination rates will be.' Only about 60 percent of 13-to-17-year-olds in the U.S. are up-to-date on their HPV shots —a gap that public-health experts consider a major missed opportunity. That the shot can almost perfectly prevent infection and disease for decades is 'like the fantasy we have of vaccines,' Brewer told me. Its rock-solid protection 'just keeps rolling.' But the new ACIP may see matters differently. Kennedy has yet to fill the committee's roster, but his initial picks include individuals who appear to have a beef with HPV immunization. One member, Vicky Pebsworth, co-wrote an analysis detailing adverse events following HPV vaccination for an anti-vaccine organization, which she serves on the board of. Another new member, Martin Kulldorff, provided expert testimony in cases against the drugmaker Merck over its Gardasil vaccine, the only HPV shot available in the U.S., and received thousands of dollars from plaintiffs who accused the company of downplaying the vaccine's risks. (A judge in North Carolina overseeing one of those cases ruled in favor of Merck; another, in Los Angeles, is going to trial later this year.) And Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has himself been instrumental in organizing the litigation campaign against Merck—and has described Gardasil as 'the most dangerous vaccine ever invented.' (Under pressure from senators, Kennedy has said that he will relinquish any proceeds from these lawsuits to his son.) He has also falsely claimed that the HPV vaccine—which data show has dramatically reduced rates of cervical cancer in the U.S. and elsewhere—'actually increases the risk of cervical cancer.' (HHS, the CDC, Pebsworth, and Kulldorff did not respond to a request for comment.) At some point, the current ACIP might see fit to soften the existing guidelines, or even advise the CDC to remove the vaccine recommendations for certain groups. If it does, those decisions could prompt insurers to stop covering the vaccines, or disincentivize health-care providers from offering them to families. The committee could also remove the vaccine from the Vaccines for Children program, which provides shots to kids whose parents cannot afford them. (An initial agenda for the ACIP meeting scheduled to start on Wednesday initially included a recommendation vote for the HPV vaccine, as well as a vote on its status in Vaccines for Children; those items no longer appear in the CDC's draft agenda.) A few of the experts I spoke with raised the possibility that this new ACIP might still amend the HPV-vaccine recommendation to a single dose, but with a different rationale: not because the members are swayed by the data on its effectiveness, but because they'd support any option that cleaves a vaccine dose from the immunization schedule. Kennedy, too, seems likely to back such a move. 'Any window to roll back the number of times a child receives a vaccine injection? He's going to push for,' Alison Buttenheim, a behavioral scientist at Penn Nursing, told me. The net effect might at first seem the same: Fewer doses of the HPV vaccine would be on the schedule. But the reasoning behind a decision can matter just as much as the end result. Robert Bednarczyk, an epidemiologist and vaccine researcher at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health, pointed out that, although much of the evidence so far has pointed toward one dose being enough, the case isn't yet a slam dunk: Some of the trials investigating the single-dose strategy are using different formulations of Gardasil, or non-Gardasil brands, which may perform differently. (The Costa Rica trial, notably, does include the same Gardasil recipe used in the U.S.) And some experts still wonder if the protection offered by a single shot may fade faster than a double-dose regimen—a more challenging aspect of vaccine protection to assess without many years of follow-up. If that's the case, prematurely dropping the second dose could later force the U.S. to add a shot back into the vaccine schedule—a confusing message that could erode trust. The last thing the country needs now is 'another hit to public confidence around vaccines,' Bednarczyk said. How Kennedy and his allies publicly justify these choices, then, matters quite a bit. Vaccines, on the whole, are now being billed by the government not as vital, lifesaving tools, but as unnecessary risks, deserving of additional scrutiny. Of the multitude of vaccines on the childhood-immunization schedule, many people already see HPV 'as the troublesome one,' Brewer told me. Its ability to prevent cancer has been underemphasized; some critics have stoked unfounded fears that, because the vaccine guards against a sexually transmitted virus, it will increase promiscuity. And unlike other vaccines recommended in the early adolescent years, such as the meningococcal vaccine and the Tdap booster—which are required by most or all states for entry into secondary school—HPV is mandated for preteens in only a handful of jurisdictions. All of these pressures make the vaccine more vulnerable to being rejected, Chapman told me. And should Kennedy's new vaccine team openly discard HPV doses primarily for the sake of dropping a shot, that could set a precedent—for removing other vaccines from the schedule, in part or entirely.
Toronto Sun
a day ago
- Business
- Toronto Sun
CHARLEBOIS: The fall of artificial colours in food
When consumer trust is on the line, even Big Food knows that fake colour doesn't sell Kraft Heinz brand Jell-O boxes line a stores shelf on June 18, 2025 in Miami. The company announced that it will remove FD&C artificial dyes from its products by the end of 2027. Photo by Joe Raedle / Getty Images This week, General Mills announced it will remove all artificial colours from its U.S. products, just hours after Kraft Heinz made a similar commitment. Both companies are giving themselves two years to complete the transition — a realistic timeline, given that reformulating food products can be as complex as redesigning a vehicle. It typically takes two to three years to test, approve and scale up new ingredients. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account What's extraordinary is that these changes are happening voluntarily. There is no government ban. No regulatory mandate. These companies are simply responding to market pressures — pressures rooted in a growing consumer demand for 'clean labels.' Some attribute this momentum to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) initiative. While better known for his controversial stance on vaccines, RFK Jr. has long advocated for the naturalization of food systems. Now, as health secretary, he's in a position to shape policy — and public sentiment — in ways that may accelerate the move away from artificial ingredients. Some of the movement is evidence-based. While artificial food dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 5 have been approved by regulators and deemed safe in small doses, concerns remain — particularly among parents and pediatric health professionals. Emerging research suggests a link between certain dyes and behavioral issues, including hyperactivity in children. Europe has already imposed stricter labelling rules and encouraged the use of natural alternatives. North American regulations, by contrast, remain relatively permissive. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But make no mistake: This shift is primarily driven by politics and market optics. Consumers have been expressing discomfort with artificial additives for years, and large Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) companies like General Mills and Kraft Heinz have seen the writing on the wall. Clean-label expectations are no longer niche — they are mainstream. The implications are significant. With major industry players moving simultaneously, the economics of natural dyes could change rapidly. Today, natural alternatives such as beet juice, turmeric, and carrot extract are more expensive and less stable than synthetic counterparts. But as demand increases and supply chains adapt, these costs are likely to fall. Importantly, when all competitors shift at the same time, the playing field is level — there's less fear of losing market share to a more colourful, artificially enhanced rival. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Canada will inevitably feel the ripple effects. Many food products on Canadian shelves are imported from U.S. facilities. It is unlikely that manufacturers will maintain separate formulations for a relatively small market like Canada. As a result, Canadians can expect to see more artificial dye-free products, regardless of whether the federal government acts. That said, Health Canada may choose to respond, but it may not matter. Canadian manufacturers who export to the U.S. will face mounting pressure to align with cleaner label expectations, especially if U.S. retailers begin to phase out artificially coloured products. While Canada regulates artificial dyes through dosage limits and labelling requirements, public concern continues to rise. For consumers hoping artificial colours will disappear from their food, change is coming — and soon. And here's the good news: Because the shift is industry-wide, the economics suggest food prices won't rise due to the use of natural dyes. In fact, the transition may lead to better transparency, more innovation, and healthier choices — without a hit to the wallet. — Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is the Director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast NHL Soccer Columnists Sunshine Girls Canada
