The Trump administration is making headlines again, this time for targeting synthetic food dyes in American products.
Under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime health activist and now the controversial U.S. secretary of health and human services, U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to phase out several petroleum-based dyes, including Red Dye No. 40, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, citing links to cancer and behavioural issues in children. Some dyes are expected to be pulled from shelves within months, while Red Dye No. 40 is set to disappear by the end of next year.
These dyes are commonly found in foods like candy, fruit-flavoured drinks, cereals and snack products — items especially popular with children. Though used in small amounts, they’ve been a staple in North American processed foods since the 1970s.
The U.S. policy shift builds on action by the Biden administration earlier this year, when the Food and Drug Administration moved to revoke authorization for Red Dye No. 3.
In Canada, Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B are already banned, but Red Dyes No. 3 and 40 remain permitted, with stricter usage thresholds than in the United States.
Health Canada sets the acceptable daily intake of Red Dye No. 40 at seven milligrams per kilogram of body weight. For a 77-kilogram adult (about 170 pounds), that’s roughly 500 milligrams per day — an amount considered safe over a lifetime of use.
However, scientific views are evolving. A systematic review published in Environmental Health pointed to a possible link between synthetic dyes and negative behavioural effects in children. While not conclusive, the study suggested that existing safety limits may not fully protect vulnerable populations.
Natural alternatives, such as curcumin, carotenes, paprika extract, anthocyanins and beet juice, can replace synthetic dyes. But they come with trade-offs: less vibrancy, greater sensitivity to heat and light, and higher costs.
These properties reduce shelf life and complicate distribution, raising expenses for manufacturers and retailers.
Because Canada’s food supply is closely tied to the U.S., with many brands and ingredients crossing the border, any regulatory change south of the line will have ripple effects.
Canadian manufacturers exporting to the U.S. may be forced to comply with new standards, and maintaining separate formulations for different markets is both inefficient and expensive. In many cases, switching to a single, dye-free formulation for the continent will simply make more economic sense.
The timing of the U.S. announcement, just days after Easter when North American children consume large quantities of dyed candy, was likely deliberate. The White House may have postponed the news to avoid disrupting holiday sales or raising awkward questions from parents.
Now, all eyes turn to Health Canada. Regulators maintain that synthetic dyes used within approved limits pose no significant risk. But in today’s risk-averse climate, public perception often outweighs scientific consensus, especially when it involves children’s health.
Whether Ottawa chooses to act proactively or wait for pressure to build, this shift in U.S. policy is likely to influence Canadian regulation. If officials remain silent, growing consumer awareness could drive the change from below.
“Make America Healthy Again” may soon be more than a political slogan. It could mark the beginning of a new era of food dye reform across the continent. And if it does, Canada’s food industry — and its regulators — will need to be ready.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of . He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
SIDEBAR:
What is Red Dye No. 40?
Red Dye No. 40 is a synthetic food colouring made from petroleum. It’s used to give a bright red hue to candies, cereals, drinks and snack foods.
Though approved by Health Canada, it has been linked to possible behavioural effects in children and is now being phased out in the U.S.
©
The commentaries offered on Â鶹´«Ã½ are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any Â鶹´«Ã½ staff.
to receive daily headline updates of all of our new Editorial content
