CalMatters
By Kristen Hwang, CalMatters
Many brightly colored kids’ snacks and beverages will disappear from California schools under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Sunday that bans certain artificial food dyes from K-12 campuses.
Starting in 2028, six common food dyes will no longer be allowed in food sold at schools because of concerns that they cause behavior and attention problems in some children. The banned dyes are: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6.
Artificial food coloring production in the U.S. has increased more than six-fold since the Food and Drug Administration first issued safety regulations in the 1930s. Although initial studies indicated that artificial colors were nontoxic, recent research has linked eating foods containing synthetic dyes to hyperactivity and trouble concentrating, particularly among children.
This legislation builds on a first-in-the-nation law Newsom signed last year to ban the sale of food containing four food additives common in candies and baked goods, and are thought to be harmful. That law applies to food sold anywhere in California, while this year’s legislation focuses solely on school nutrition.
“The reason it makes sense to focus on schools is because that’s where a lot of those behavioral and hyperactivity issues are going to compound,” Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs with Environmental Working Group, a national advocacy group that co-sponsored the legislation. “If you know there are kids in these schools that have a sensitivity to these dyes, and it makes it harder for them to concentrate, then you are not creating the most conducive learning environment for those kids.”
Several state legislatures are considering bills similar to California’s. The federal government, however, has not updated its safety standards.
“California is once again leading the nation when it comes to protecting our kids from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, the Democrat from Encino who authored the law.
Packaged food manufacturers opposed the food dye restrictions, saying that the FDA — not California — is the appropriate food safety regulator.
“The approach taken by California politicians ignores our science and risk based process and is not the precedent we should be setting when it comes to feeding our families,” said John Hewitt, a senior vice president at Consumer Brands Association, which opposed the measure. The organization represents major food manufacturers, such as Coca Cola and J.M. Smucker.
What does the science say on food dyes?
Managing risk of harmful chemicals can be tricky, and California is no stranger to considering controversial legislation that attempts to reduce exposure.
An early version of the law Newsom signed last year to ban certain food additives was derided by critics as a “Skittles ban” before lawmakers amended it in a way that excluded the dye in the popular candy. Meanwhile, cancer warnings that are required by a 1986 law known as Proposition 65 are often criticized for creating consumer confusion and spurious lawsuits.
But advocates say federal regulations don’t move as quickly as science, requiring state lawmakers to take initiative.
California’s environmental hazard research agency published a 300-page report assessing the risk of synthetic food dyes in 2021. The conclusion: The studies used by the FDA to develop safety standards did not assess neurological outcomes that have since been associated with food coloring. Those papers, which are between 35 to 70 years old, instead looked for physiological toxic effects, such as weight gain or decreased liver function in animals.
More recent research, including clinical trials, show links between eating dye and behavioral problems in children at much lower doses than the FDA’s current allowable limit.
“We all agreed that the weight of evidence supported an association, and that the current acceptable daily intakes for some of the dyes set by FDA may not adequately protect against behavioral or neurobehavioral outcomes,” said Asa Bradman, a public health professor at UC Merced who worked on the state’s risk assessment. “And you know, that’s kind of a bombshell.”
Hewitt from the Consumer Brands Association said packaged food manufacturers stand by the FDA guidelines.
“It’s unfortunate the scientifically proven, safe ingredients have been demonized without a scientific basis,” Hewitt said.
But Bradman said the industry hasn’t been able to discredit any of the newer research — it has only pointed to the original studies, which are outdated and not appropriate for assessing behavioral changes.
Dyes in juice, soda and ice cream
Children are the most vulnerable to the adverse effects associated with food coloring, in part, because they’re more likely to eat foods and beverages that are dyed. Even medications for children, such as cough syrup and vitamins, are manufactured with synthetic dyes. Kids are also more susceptible because their brains are still developing, and their body weight is smaller compared to the amount of dye consumed, research shows.
Juice, soda, icing and ice cream cones are major sources of exposure among kids.
Poverty and race also increase exposure risk, the state’s report found. Black children and women of childbearing age ingested significantly more food coloring than other ethnic groups.
The foods that contain the most dye are “poor quality junk food,” Bradman said. Most schools already have healthy food programs aimed at reducing them on campus. This legislation would help encourage schools to serve even healthier foods, he said.
Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.
This article was originally published by CalMatters.
Thank you for thinking of the children! There is absolutely no need for this stuff in our kids’ lunches. Sodas, ice creams, etc can be up to the parents at home, but I’d prefer my taxes are spent on healthier foods for kids at school so they can have at least one healthy meal a day.
How about addressing the greater problem – obesity in children and adolescents, especially minority children?
Ruby, if we address the roots of this issue you’re not going to like it. Root issues are usually poverty, capitalism, inequities, unfair wages, etc. etc. All the things Republicans ignore or deny they exist.
RUBY – this IS addressing the problem of kids’ health. A lot of these dyes are also found in the those foods that contribute to child obesity. Further, thanks to Michelle Obama, most school districts are now serving healthier options for kids to directly address the problem.
Two important issues with this: 1. The bad doesn’t starts for three years. If t hose chemicals are so potentially toxic to children, why not start the ban—–yesterday? 2. Those chemicals are already banned or restricted in a number of more civilized locations, like Canada, Au, NZ and most of Europe. As is so often the case, the USA lags behind the rest of the world’s acceptance of the science, generally for sake of corporate profit at the expense of our citizen’s health. Not new information.
GINGER1 – true, while some chant “we’re #1” etc, they overlook the fact that we’re nowhere near the “greatest nation on earth” anymore, if we ever truly were. We have allowed money and greed to supersede the health of our populace. We are dangerously close to once again electing a lying anti-science tyrant to run our country. We have allowed public education to fail.
We need to do better.
A very small and way late step in the right direction. The bigger problem is the lack of nutritious food overall in the school free food program, mainly the lack of protein. You should see what the “breakfasts” look like. Can you say carbo bomb? No wonder kids are getting fatter. Diabetes and obesity are coming faster than climate change.
Not sure why the downvotes on this. I wholeheartedly agree. The public school food is horrendously devoid of balanced nutrition and heavy on empty calories. There may be a small amount of protein – but a little bit of protein doesn’t negate the effects of dozens of grams of sugar to start the day. Sac is right that there are “other things” in addition to the main course, but this is mainly at lunchtime. At breakfast, the sides are cartons of milk (gross in itself – and have you seen how much sugar is in milk?!) genetically modified apples and bananas, and sugary things that are called “granola bars.” All sugar and carbs, all the time. Don’t get me wrong – it’s REALLY good and important that food is available consistently! I do wish that healthier options were more of a focus for our kids.
All true. Empty calories. And yeah, downvotes mean jack here, to be honest. Purely political.
COATLIQUE13 – unlike BASIC says, it’s not “purely political.” A lot of folks here disagree with him as he usually is making things up out of thin air, such as “it’s just banana bread” and it has “zero calories” and soy/tofu also have “zero protein.”
It has nothing to do with “politics,” just a general dislike among readers here of someone who constantly lies, makes up arguments that never existed, belittles and insults others for being rescued or writing articles he doesn’t like, etc etc ad nauseum. It’s pure him, nothing else.
Ah yes, BASIC – “mainly the lack of protein.” “Zero protein,” to be exact, right? Despite claims from the AHA and other reputable medical and health organizations, tofu and soy contain “zero protein,” according to Doc Two Boats.
But please, go ahead complaining about Newsom while he’s doing something you completely agree with.
Tomorrow’s breakfast is listed as “banana bread.” Does anyone know, is this the complete breakfast offering, or are there also some items offered every day? Today’s was bagel and cream cheese. Wednesday’s is egg, ham and potato burrito.
Nope, it’s just banana bread. That’s it. Zero protein. Mucho carbs most days in their “breakfasts”. I get it – the sugary, bready stuff kids eat but it’s not healthy. The lunches tend to be a bit better. Childhood obesity and T2 diabetes are out of control. Ozempic anyone???
BASIC says “Nope, it’s just banana bread. That’s it. Zero protein.”
That is absolutely and totally WRONG.
AHCHOOO – once again, he’s 100% lying. Total BS. Just because the menu says one main item does not mean that is the only food provided like BASIC is making up. Just look at the other menu days. You really think they would only serve pizza and nothing else? Look at the photo and ask any kid who attends a school in SBUSD. https://www.sbunified.org/support/foodservices
And BASIC – “zero protein” once again is ZERO TRUTH. Stop lying about health. Isn’t that your profession?
Depending on the recipe/source, there’s about 2.5 to over 5 grams of protein in every serving.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/309842-calories-in-a-slice-of-banana-nut-bread/
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-banana-bread-healthy#nutrients
AHCHOOO – sorry to have mixed you in with my exhausted correction of BASIC’s continuous lying, but the answer to your question is no, it’s not the only item. Like with lunch, there is a “main dish” as well as salads, fruits, milk, and other side items to complete the meal.
Naner bread only has 1.6 grams of protein and is not really considered a protein
1.6 grams (and it’s often more than that) is not “zero protein.”
You’re missing the point.
Unlike soy and tofu, which the pretend doc also claims to be “zero protein,” banana bread is not a great primary source of protein nor is it a healthy breakfast on its own. That’s true and I’ve never said otherwise.
No doubt. The problem here, Tnkyknk, is that some people are incapable of telling the truth because they are so attached to absolutes.
Is banana bread a good source of protein, of course it isn’t. Can and does banana bread often have some protein content, and can that protein content be increased by choosing certain ingredients, of course it can.
Saying that it has “zero protein” is simply, demonstrably, obviously false.
“Empty calories” is what I said, not zero calories as you misquoted. Ever heard of the concept of empty calories? It’s just feeding kids calories with very little actual nutritional value. It’s a thing.
BI either doesn’t know how to use precise language when communicating, or, more likely, prefers to leave wiggle room for his paltering. Thats why “zero” can suddenly become “very little”, and “protein” can become “calories”.
““Empty calories” is what I said, not zero calories as you misquoted. ”
Kneejerk lying and misquoting by you.