Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the Food and Drug Administration to phase out artificial food dyes in the U.S. food supply. His decision, while well-meaning, is misguided. It is based on what is, at best, shaky science. It could also make us unhealthier while providing a nice boost to the D.C. swamp.

The ban would apply to six dyes including Blue Dyes No. 1 and 2, Green Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40, and Yellow Dyes No. 5 and 6. The effect the ban will have on the U.S. cannot be exaggerated. These dyes are found in breath mints, cakes, candy, canned vegetables, cereal, chips, condiments, cookies, cough syrup, energy drinks, fish, frosting, ice cream, Jello, milk, mouthwash, pastries, popsicles, pudding, punch, salad dressing, sauces, sausage, soda, soups, toothpaste, vitamins, and yogurt.

The ban is based on two health concerns, that food dyes cause cancer and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. For cancer, the science backing that up is best described as junk science. Late last year, the FDA banned Red Dye No. 3. The basis for the ban was two studies that found Red Dye No. 3 causes cancer in rats. The problem with studies using rats is they produce absurd results when applying them to humans. In both studies, Red Dye No. 3 comprised 4% of the rats’ diet. For a human to consume a comparable amount, he would have to eat seven packages of candy corn or 13 tubes of red cake icing daily. Don’t worry about cancer. You’ll die from diabetes first.

As for the link between ADHD and food dyes, one article that proponents of a ban cite as compelling is a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics in 2004. However, the results from the study actually suggest the link is tenuous. The study uses a statistic known as an odds ratio. An odds ratio of .2 means that an association is weak. The study finds that the odds ratio for the association between food dyes and ADHD is .21.

In 2021, another meta-analysis by the California State Government examined 12 high-quality studies on food dyes and ADHD. Half of those studies failed to find a significant association between food dyes and ADHD.  Weak and inconclusive associations are not a sound basis for making sweeping changes in public policy.

Kennedy wants to make Americans healthy again, but the ban will do the opposite. Banning artificial food dyes means food producers will have to use natural food dyes. But artificial food dyes are tasteless while natural ones are not. For example, both matcha powder, a natural green dye, and turmeric, a natural yellow natural dye, have bitter tastes. If using natural food dyes changes the taste of popular foods in ways consumers don’t like, how will food producers respond? They will likely add more sugar, salt, and fat to food to improve the flavor. That means higher calories, and that’s not healthy.

Natural food dyes are also more expensive, which means the cost of dyed foods will rise. There are many healthy foods that use food dyes, such as canned vegetables, cereal, fish, milk, soup, and yogurt. If using natural food dyes causes the prices of healthy foods to rise, people will purchase and consume less of them.

Finally, the ban will benefit the D.C. Swamp. For starters, it’s not clear the FDA has the authority to impose this ban, which means a messy legal fight will ensue. That will enrich lawyers and lobbyists in the Beltway. Trying to enforce the ban will mean hiring more bureaucrats. And it will also be great for politicians. If makers of food dyes aren’t already calling members of Congress and offering campaign contributions, they soon will be.

President Trump has made draining the D.C. swamp the hallmark of his administration. Unfortunately, a ban on artificial food dyes will fill it back up.

David Hogberg is a writer living in Washington, D.C. He is author of the book Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.