WASHINGTON – Recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health secretary, held a news conference to announce a plan aimed at phasing out synthetic food dyes. This move is part of a broader effort to enhance food safety and transparency.
During the event, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary stated that the agency is “removing all petroleum-based food dyes” from U.S. foods. However, the details only emerged towards the end of the announcement, when Kennedy mentioned that the government had an understanding with food manufacturers to voluntarily stop using these chemicals. An FDA statement noted that a “national standard and timeline” for this process would be forthcoming.
Despite this announcement, over a year later, the FDA has not released any formal regulatory documents that would establish a significant safety concern regarding the synthetic dyes. Instead, they maintain an online list of manufacturers that have committed to phasing out these chemicals.
This approach reflects the administration’s strategy on various health issues. Rather than going through the lengthy federal rulemaking process—which can take years and span multiple administrations—officials under President Donald Trump have opted to announce changes first and handle the regulations later.
Public health experts, such as Susan Mayne from Yale University, have raised concerns about this tactic. “It speaks volumes that the administration has yet to produce a document articulating the scientific basis for the voluntary request,” she noted. The FDA’s website still claims that “the totality of scientific evidence” does not support a link between synthetic dyes and health issues.
Kennedy’s spokesperson defended the administration’s approach, stating that they have made more progress on food dyes “than at any point in the past.” Emily Hilliard from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added, “FDA engaged industry early in this effort to encourage timely changes while continuing its scientific and regulatory work.”
However, the lack of formal regulations is particularly noteworthy. Under federal law, the FDA is expected to refrain from making significant policy announcements outside of official channels. Traditionally, such changes would be published in the Federal Register, allowing for public commentary and expert input.
What’s surprising is the minimal resistance from the powerful companies regulated by the FDA. Historically, the agency has faced numerous lawsuits from various industries over regulatory processes. Yet, drug companies and other major corporations seem to be largely silent on this issue for now.
Industry observers suggest that the FDA’s willingness to pressure drug manufacturers, including on issues like drug pricing, may contribute to this lack of pushback. Dan Troy, a former FDA chief counsel, remarked, “Does the government have the ability to basically bully companies? Yes, and I think we’re seeing that.”
In a notable shift, last May, Makary and Dr. Vinay Prasad announced via a medical journal that the FDA would no longer routinely approve COVID-19 vaccines for healthy adults under 65 and children without underlying health conditions without extensive studies. This decision bypassed the traditional process of consulting agency experts.
As public health experts like Dr. Kathryn Edwards have pointed out, the absence of pushback from vaccine manufacturers might stem from the FDA’s significant influence over their products. “Ultimately, you need the FDA to license your product,” she explained, highlighting the challenges companies face if they contest FDA decisions.
Looking ahead, the recent changes at the FDA may lack durability. Many of the agency’s initiatives could easily be reversed by a future administration, especially if they are not formally codified into law. “Anything that this administration does that they don’t embody in law can easily be undone,” Troy noted.
Despite the current climate, signs indicate that some companies may be ready to voice their concerns. The FDA recently began publicly releasing rejection letters for drugs it chose not to approve—a practice that had been kept confidential. An unnamed drug manufacturer has even filed a petition challenging this new transparency, labeling the FDA’s actions as “arbitrary and capricious.”
In conclusion, the FDA’s approach to synthetic food dyes and other health regulations is evolving, raising important questions about the balance between public health and industry influence. As this situation unfolds, it will be critical to monitor how these changes impact the safety and transparency of the food we consume.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
