In an era dominated by extremes—ultra-processed food on one hand, and ultra-expensive wellness culture on the other—Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s latest initiative might strike a quiet balance: cautious, conservative, and dare I say it, common-sensical. As the newly minted Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy has announced his first major regulatory move under the MAHA banner—Make America Healthy Again—by phasing out eight FDA-approved artificial food dyes by the end of 2026.

The plan, if carried through, would force large food and pharmaceutical companies to find natural alternatives to ingredients like Red 40 and Yellow 5, colorants most of us unknowingly consume in cereals, candy, vitamins, and even over-the-counter medications. The logic, Kennedy suggests, is not to inflame panic but to inspire restraint.

This editorial seeks not to fan political flames nor to demonize the fast-food culture many of us grew up with. Instead, it aims to reflect—quietly, thoughtfully—on what it means to make a country healthy again. Not flashy. Not trendy. But healthier, a little at a time, beginning with what’s hidden in plain sight: the colors in our food.

The History of Brightness: A Cautionary Glow

Artificial dyes have been a fixture of the American pantry for over a century. Introduced in the early 1900s, synthetic colorants made food more visually appealing and shelf-stable. The logic was economic and aesthetic: if something looks vibrant, we’re more inclined to buy it, eat it, and believe it’s fresh.

But that glow comes at a cost. Red 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1—these are not simply “ingredients.” They’re petroleum-derived chemicals. They don’t nourish, they decorate. And decoration, while not inherently bad, becomes problematic when it masks a lack of quality or is targeted toward children, whose developing brains and bodies may not process these additives safely.

To be clear, no definitive study has proven that artificial food dyes cause cancer in humans. But does that mean they’re good for us? Hardly. Studies on lab rats have raised enough red flags to prompt international concern. The European Union requires warning labels on foods containing certain dyes. Some countries have banned them altogether. And here in the U.S., California and West Virginia are taking matters into their own legislative hands.

Kennedy’s push is not just a political maneuver; it’s a cultural reset—slow, deliberate, rooted in prudence.

The Conservative Case for Cleaner Food

One need not be liberal to support this policy. In fact, the quiet virtue of Kennedy’s dye ban lies in its inherently conservative ethic: preservation of health, protection of children, reduction of unnecessary industrial intervention in what we eat.

Consider the family table. For generations, conservatives have spoken about the importance of home, tradition, and values. But how do those values translate into what’s placed on a dinner plate? When artificial dyes are found in ketchup, mac and cheese, fruit snacks, and vitamins—often marketed to kids—the home becomes less a place of nourishment and more a passive conduit for corporate additives.

Reducing exposure to artificial dyes doesn’t require veganism or boutique shopping. It simply means favoring food that looks like food. Strawberries should be red because they’re ripe. Cereal should be golden because of the grain. Medicine shouldn’t need to be neon blue to soothe a sore throat.

What’s being proposed here isn’t a new world order. It’s a return to basics.

Resistance in the Aisles

Unsurprisingly, industry pushback has been swift. Food manufacturers argue that eliminating artificial dyes would raise production costs, thereby increasing prices at the grocery store. Some warn of consumer dissatisfaction, citing past failures like General Mills’ brief foray into natural coloring for Trix cereal in 2016—a move reversed after public outcry over faded hues and altered flavors.

But this argument reveals a deeper tension: are consumers unwilling to adapt, or have they simply not been given a compelling alternative? When General Mills reformulated Trix, the shift was abrupt and poorly communicated. Nostalgia clashed with expectation. And yet, if Americans were told plainly—this food is better for your kids, here’s why—perhaps the response would differ.

Change does not happen in a vacuum. It happens through education, transparency, and leadership. Kennedy’s job is not merely to legislate but to guide. If his team can articulate the health rationale behind this dye phase-out clearly and calmly, many families might actually welcome the reform.

A Patchwork of State Laws: Can the Federal Government Catch Up?

To Kennedy’s credit, his plan isn’t born from federal arrogance but from state-level observation. California banned Red 3 last year. West Virginia’s dye ban takes effect in 2028, with schools phasing out artificial colors even sooner. Twenty-six other states are considering similar action. In this respect, Kennedy’s initiative is less a top-down mandate and more an alignment with the moral momentum of the states.

This is where conservatives, particularly those who advocate for federalism, may find common ground with the MAHA movement. If states are already acting, the federal government’s role can be one of coordination and consistency. Rather than let Americans be subject to a dietary lottery based on zip code, the FDA can set a national standard—rooted not in panic, but in prudence.

Beyond Dyes: A Broader Movement?

Kennedy’s announcement comes at a symbolic crossroads in American health culture. Ultra-processed food has become a staple of the modern diet, linked to obesity, diabetes, and cognitive decline. Meanwhile, natural food alternatives are often priced out of reach for low-income families.

Phasing out dyes alone won’t fix these systemic problems, but it’s a start. A well-signaled, manageable start. It tells parents that what’s inside a snack matters as much as what’s not. It tells kids that you don’t need neon pink to enjoy a popsicle. It tells food manufacturers that color doesn’t equal quality—and quality doesn’t have to mean expense.

And most importantly, it suggests a future where food is once again grounded in nature, not novelty.

Impression

The Multicolored Age of American consumption has left us saturated—in taste, expectation, and health consequence. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plan doesn’t seek to drain the fun from food. It seeks to reduce its toxicity. It doesn’t call for puritanism. It calls for purity of ingredient.

We can argue about many things in today’s divided nation. But surely, we can agree that food should feed—not just visually stimulate, not just pacify children in the cereal aisle, but nourish.

Removing eight artificial dyes from our diet is not a radical act. It is a humble one. A conservative one. A long-overdue return to moderation. In an America overwhelmed by the artificial, this move may be our first real taste of the authentic.

No comments yet.