The Truth About Food Dyes, Sugar, and Public Health
Recently, US Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., made headlines by calling for the removal of food dyes and sugar from the American food supply. While this may sound appealing on the surface, it highlights a deeper, more troubling trend: the manipulation of science to suit a predetermined narrative. This is becoming quite a habit with the current HHS leadership.
Kennedy declared, “I was raised in a time when we did not have a chronic disease epidemic,” citing a jump in chronic illness among children from two percent during his uncle’s presidency to 66 percent today. It’s a dramatic soundbite — and almost entirely fiction.
The reality? While we’ve definitely seen increases in weight and obesity in children, children's health outcomes have improved dramatically in the last several decades, with child mortality dropping from 68.6 deaths per 100,000 in 1962 (only ~60 years ago) to 24.9 in 2018.
But instead of embracing these improvements, Kennedy wants to reframe the narrative to fit his agenda. And unfortunately, many people are buying it.
Food dyes are a perfect red herring.
Let's be clear: food dyes currently used in the U.S. food supply are safe. Their safety has been reviewed for decades by regulatory bodies, including the FDA, and is continually reassessed based on the best available science.
Assertions that these dyes are "banned in other countries" are often completely false and misleading. In many cases, the same additives are simply listed under different names or regulated slightly differently, not banned outright. Dr. Jessica Knurick has an excellent substack on these dyes and their use around the world, if you want to know more.
Moreover, the use of the phrase “petroleum-based dyes” is simply fear-mongering, appealing to the “natural fallacy.” (For more on this: Dr. Andrea Love debunks these claims about food products being “petroleum based,” clarifying they’re safely regulated and not made from gasoline.)
The dangers of the “health halo” effect.
Frankly, I don’t care if synthetic dyes are removed, but what replaces them WILL matter. "Natural" dyes, can still trigger adverse reactions like allergies (although rare), cost more to produce, and often carry a higher environmental burden.
And let’s be honest: swapping Red 40 for beet juice doesn’t turn Skittles into a health food. If anything, it creates a dangerous illusion that ultra-processed foods are somehow good for you, nudging people to eat more, not less. We call it a “halo effect” in the nutrition world, and don’t think that the food companies aren’t prepared to pounce on this. This is not going to be the public health flex RFK Jr. thinks it is when more kids are reaching for their “healthy M&M’s.”
Sugar is another example of misplaced political angst and its outright vilification lacks appropriate nuance. Do I want tons of added sugar in the food supply, especially in schools? Of course not. And for what it’s worth, Michelle Obama tried to get sugar and processed food out of schools almost 20 years ago, and was told to go pound by many right-leaning politicians who still hold office.
Let’s not villainize sugar.
From my lens of human performance, sugar is critical. Glucose is the body's preferred source of energy during high-intensity efforts like sprinting or heavy lifting. That's why highly processed sugar products like gels and sports drinks are used by athletes during competition and training. In fact, cyclists typically consume upwards of 100g per hour from highly processed sugar products. If they don’t, they bonk.
While excessive consumption of sugar in everyday life is certainly not ideal, sugar itself is not the root cause of disease, or “addictive,” in the way that Kennedy suggests. In fact, numerous rigorous studies have failed to show that sugar meets the clinical criteria for addiction.
And even when we look at the extensive work on food groups that are associated with diseases like Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity, we see that sugar (often specifically sugar sweetened beverages) are just as bad as meat. Yet, RFK Jr. has stated repeatedly that a carnivore diet high in beef tallow is not only healthy, but prevents disease. This could not be farther from the scientific truth.
Worse still is the way he’s manipulating some of the most respected scientists of our time. Kevin Hall, a leading nutrition researcher, recently resigned from the NIH after reportedly being asked to alter his findings regarding whether highly processed foods are addictive (according to his new research, they are not). When Hall refused to change his data to fit the narrative, his work was suppressed.
You can read more about this troubling situation in the New York Times. Additionally, the Atlantic recently detailed how RFK Jr. is not simply "veering" toward disinformation, but is actively constructing a disinformation campaign to serve his political and ideological ends.
We’re being gaslit on a national scale.
RFK Jr.'s posture as a MAHA “health crusader” is not grounded in settled or “gold standard” science, as he claims. Rather, it’s a political performance designed to manipulate us into questioning the data that has been rigorously generated and studied. True science is an ongoing process of testing hypotheses, confronting evidence, and remaining open to being proven wrong. Kennedy’s approach is the opposite: he starts with his conclusion and bends facts, or ignores them altogether, to fit his narrative. He insists that the entire scientific community has misinterpreted their own data, even as researchers across fields (from nutrition to toxicology to epidemiology) rise up in unison against his distorted version of reality. It is gaslighting on a national scale, because people see him as a change agent, rather than just another biased influencer with a very large podium.
I truly believe that the MAHA movement is asking the right questions. The problem is, they are answering their own questions with false and biased information. This dire situation highlights the critical difference between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is inaccurate information spread without harmful intent, and I don’t believe that is what is going on here. Disinformation, however, is false information deliberately spread to deceive. RFK Jr.'s actions fall squarely into the disinformation category.
This is a true crisis of truth and knowledge. If we do not fiercely protect scientific integrity, if we allow science to be bent to serve political agendas rather than objective truth, we will lose the very foundation of public trust. Without trusted sources, we are left adrift in a sea of confusion, with devastating consequences for public (and mental) health.