On April 22, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. convened a press conference and announced that the HHS and one of the agencies it oversees, the Food and Drug Administration, have begun the process required to ban two synthetic dyes used by the food industry, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B.

At that time, Kennedy also revealed that the food industry “has voluntarily agreed” to eliminate the use of six other “poisonous compounds” by the end of next year: FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2.

Without a doubt, it’s the sort of announcement that makes and will keep making news. Last Sunday, 12 days after the fact, an article about why the food industry’s voluntary compliance is unlikely to be achieved by the targeted date graced the front page of one newspaper I read.

What is in doubt, according to many knowledgeable about the matter, is both the immediate intent and the ultimate effectiveness of the government’s plan.

Thomas Galligan, principal scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told National Public Radio it was“strange” for Kennedy to be boasting about getting rid of those two dyes (“and then every [harmful] ingredient and additive in food that we can legally address”) because both are currently “very, very rarely used.” Just as odd is why the government doesn’t also ban the other six synthetic dyes since the FDA has the authority to do so.

Especially since, as Galligan adds, food companies “have consistently reneged” on voluntary agreements in the past. “They’ve claimed they’re going to get rid of these food dyes or other additives within a certain timeframe, and then they have consistently reneged on those promises.”

Since Galligan supplied no specific example, allow me. The WK Kellogg Company announced nearly a decade ago it would rid the cereals it sold in the United States of synthetic dyes by 2018, but it didn’t.

So in 2024 and in possession of a petition signed by more than 400,000 people, activists protested at the company’s Battle Creek, Michigan headquarters. When they did, it brought to light something just as frustrating as the broken promise.

That for years the Froot Loops cereal distributed in Canada contained carrot and watermelon juice instead of artificial dyes at the behest of the Canadian government.

To further assess the odds of both a long-term phase out’s occurrence and its effectiveness in the U.S., consider the following.

Synthetic dyes have no health benefits, could quite possibly be a detriment, but natural dyes cost up to 10 times more than synthetic ones. The only purpose they serve, according to a former FDA official and current president of the CSPI Dr. Peter Lurie in a BBC article about the phase out, is to “make food companies money.”

And they do so in part because synthetic dyes are vibrant, and you — to a far greater extent than you might imagine — eat with your eyes. A study cited in a 2019 Scientific American article attests to that.

In the study, participants dined on a meal of steak and french fries in a dimly lit setting. Midway through the meal, the participants were asked to assess it, and all gave the meal two thumbs up.

Moments later, though, the lights were turned up, some participants upchucked. Others refused to keep eating.

That’s because the brighter light shed additional light on the steaks and fries. They were artificially dyed blue and green.

A similar, though not nearly as dramatic, example is General Mills’ return to using synthetic dyes in Trix cereal. It occurred in 2017 and was based on consumer feedback.

Yet only one year before, consumer feedback caused General Mills to switch from synthetic dyes to natural ones. What changed? The cereal lost much of its appeal when it lost its vibrant color.

A 2024 Science News article by Sophie Hartley on the ways in which synthetic dyes may affect behavior provides a bulleted list of artificially colored “grocery store staples.” It includes both Froot Loops and Trix, Lucky Charms, cake mixes, baked goods, Pop-Tarts, Cheetos, M&M’s, Skittles, Nerds, and “specialty drinks,” such as Powerade.

I cite Hartley’s list because I’m a word nerd, and a staple in this context is “a main or important element of something, especially of a diet.”

Are any of the items in Hartley’s list truly staples? Or healthy? Or are they just suitable examples of ultra-processed foods?

Which is why the title of today’s article is what it is. And why it will end with an observation made by Susan Mayne, PhD, an adjunct professor at the Yale School of Public Health, in Fran Kriz’s article for Very Well Health.

That you’d get more bang for the buck by reducing sodium and added sugars in the typical American diet instead of spending money on reformulating foods to remove the synthetic dyes.