RFK Jr. vs Big Food: The Battle Over Artificial Additives in Your Diet

With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. set to helm the Department of Health & Human Services, I continue to look into the Health Initiatives important to him (and by proxy, us Americans) as he plans to challenge long-standing public health practices - this time turning his attention to certain food additives. I decided to take a deeper look into one of the least understood ingredients in our diets: artificial dyes, specifically Tartrazine (aka Yellow No. 5).

The FDA allows synthetic colorants such as Tartrazine, as long as it is mentioned on the label. The EU's Food Safety Authority has a similar policy - not banning it but having an additional warning about possible hyperactivity. We see these dyes everywhere from cereals to chips to drinks, but why are they in our food?

As a physician, my main knowledge was that these bright, synthetic hues are meant to make our food both more appealing and last longer on the shelf (preservatives, right?). Beyond this superficial understanding (...and 25 years ago there was a common schoolyard Mountain Dew/yellow5 link with references to reduced sperm count), I knew shockingly little about their chemical origin, their historical path, and the ongoing debates about their safety. So, much like I did with Fluoride, I dug deeper. What exactly is Tartrazine? How and why did we start consuming it? And, most importantly, are there valid reasons to reconsider its presence in our food supply?

RFK Jr. states there are over 100 additives he wants to remove (some he named in addition to Tartrazine are Red 40, BHA, BHT, and Potassium Bromate). He spent the most time talking about Tartrazine so I’ll go deepest on that - here’s what I found.

History: Toxin turned into Tools

The story of Tartrazine begins in the mid-19th century - chemists were experimenting with coal tar - a sticky, black byproduct from when coal was heated to produce gas. Though RFK Jr. calls this “industrial waste” in his video - 19th-century chemists saw coal tar as a treasure trove of valuable molecules!

Despite this silly AI-generated image, I am serious in saying there are many examples of something inherently harmful being repurposed to serve a beneficial purpose, not saying Coal Tar -> Tartrazine is one of these, but I want to set the precedent something which is seen as toxic or harmful, can be utilized in a useful, medical way.

Example 1: Botulinum Toxin (Botox).

Caused by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, it’s toxin is one of the most lethal substances known, capable of causing the life-threatening paralysis known as botulism. But scientists discovered that if administered in carefully controlled doses, this toxin could be harnessed for medical and cosmetic benefits! Purified and refined into what we now call Botox, it helps relieve chronic muscle spasms by relaxing overactive muscles, even reduce the frequency of debilitating migraines, and even smooth out wrinkles to create a more youthful appearance.

I started with this one because the voice issue that RFK Jr. is afflicted with (Spasmodic Dysphonia) is also treated by Botox (temporary relaxation, it's a treatment, but not a permanent cure).

Example 2: Nitroglycerin

This is a famously explosive and highly unstable substance - known for its role in the creation of Dynamite. Alfred Nobel (yes, the Nobel Prize guy) managed to stabilize Nitroglycerin by mixing it with kieselguhr, which gave us the safer explosive we call dynamite.

Despite all this explosive history, in measured doses, Nitroglycerin is a powerful, life-saving medicine for chest pain as it relaxes blood vessels, improving blood flow. Today Nitroglycerin is available in multiple formulations (patches, dissolvable tablets under the tongue, and pills).

Example 3: Warfarin

In the 1940s Warfarin was developed as a rat poison that worked by preventing their blood from clotting. But in the 1950s, doctors realized that by controlling the dosage, you can prevent deadly blood clots in humans! This allowed doctors to reduce the risk of stroke and heart attacks, becoming one of the most widely prescribed anticoagulants, helping millions avoid life-threatening clots.

Today it’s a cornerstone medication for patients at risk of stroke or heart attack, and it would be a shame if politicians focused on giving patients “rat poison” which would be technically accurate but completely misleading.

In other words, many substances once feared for their deadly effects have been transformed into a widely utilized tool for improving health and enhancing quality of life.

Back to Tartrazine

So, those 19th-century chemists found that the 'aromatic hydrocarbons' found in coal tar could be tweaked to create a spectrum of vibrant colors - but mainly for the textile industry.

The breakthrough came in 1856 when a chemist named William Perkin accidentally created the first synthetic dye from coal tar, which was called “mauveine.” This purple hue was derived from coal tar starting materials and sparked a revolution. Suddenly, what had once been a sticky black waste product fueled by the coal industry transformed into a commercial goldmine!

Over the next few decades, chemists created an entire rainbow of dyes from coal tar, each with a unique chemical structure and color - reds, blues, greens, and eventually bright yellows like Tartrazine.

So that’s a cool history… but why is it in our food? When did it go from clothing dye to food coloring?

How Tartrazine got into our food

So in the early 1900s the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 in the U.S. was one of the first major pieces of legislation aimed at controlling what could legally be added to food. Though this was actually closely related to the conditions in the meatpacking industry (The Jungle by Upton Sinclair highlighted this issue very well) and pre-approval drugs entering the market. But this set the stage for future laws which would eventually be related to Tartrazine and other dyes.

Next, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 gave the FDA more authority to regulate color additives. Finally, the Color Additive Amendments of 1960 established the certification system still in use today. Tartrazine (Yellow No. 5) became one of the commonly approved and widely used synthetic dyes.

Unlike natural dyes derived from turmeric, saffron, or beetroot, Tartrazine had a bright, stable yellow that didn’t fade easily and was cheaper for large-scale production. Cereal, soda, candy, and snack companies jumped on these qualities.

Health concerns about Tartrazine

These concerns started almost immediately, and a LOT of studies were done to test Tartrazine, I’ll break some down here:

Study #1: Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community

• This study gave kids 6 different food additives (now called the “Southampton Six”). So in addition to Tartrazine, kids were given 5 other synthetic dyes.
• Two groups of children, 3 year olds and 8/9 year olds were given either a placebo or a drink with artificial dyes (important note: they gave every child all 6 dyes)
• There was no cause-and-effect relationship established for these dyes, but it raised enough concern to influence policy.

The EU added warning labels “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children” but the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded more evidence was required to make blanket claims.

Study #2 Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of tartrazine (E 102) as a food additive.

The big thing that came out of this was that the EFSA established an acceptable daily intake (7.5 mg/kg bw/day). Otherwise pretty uneventful

Study #3 Dietary sensitivities and ADHD symptoms: thirty-five years of research

• This one is pretty interesting - I call it a study but its more of a review of all the scientific literature on the subject - seeing if artificial food coloring has an effect on ADHD symptoms in children.
• They found that dietary changes don’t help all children with ADHD - but estimated between 5% to 10% of children may experience improvement in symptoms when eliminating preservatives/dyes from their diet.
• Ultimately, they concluded for parents interested in not using drugs to treat their child’s ADHD, to try a trial period of elimination of additives in their diet to see if it improves symptoms.

They also advocated for clearer labeling and transparency, but not banning additives like Tartrazine.

Other additives

I’ve focused on Tartrazine since it was the main one RFK Jr. talked about in his official video, but he also mentioned Red 40, BHA, BHT, and Potassium Bromate. I’ll just give a short overview of each here:

Red 40 is a synthetic dye that is red instead of yellow like Tartrazine (aka Yellow 5). Has the same warning label as Tartrazine in the EU.

BHA (Butylated Hydroxyanisole) and BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene) - are both antioxidants that prevent fat/oil from going rancid - extending the shelf life of snack foods. There appears to be some animal studies that show it may cause cancer (at very high doses) but the FDA allows it at low levels - and it is widely used.

Potassium Bromate - flour improver with cancer-causing concerns, banned in some countries, but still allowed in the U.S. under strict conditions like being fully converted to a non-harmful form during baking. Many bakeries and manufacturers are avoiding it already due to consumer pressure.

Also recently Red No 3 has come under scrutiny by the FDA.

So where does all this leave us?

RFK Jr is accurate saying that it started out as a coal byproduct, but that’s a bit of a misleading narrative as we learned with examples like botulinum toxin, nitroglycerin, and warfarin, the same substance can be harmful or helpful depending on how it’s used and regulated. Also today Tartrazine is even made from some kind of petroleum jelly instead of coal tar.

The video where RFK Jr claimed “Tumors, Asthma,mental delay, ADD/ADHD, Hormone disruption, gene damage, anxiety, depression, and intestinal injuries.” can occur from Tartrazine. I don’t see evidence of this Tumors, mental delay, hormone disruption, gene damage, anxiety or depression. As I mentioned throughout, many studies were performed on Asthma and ADHD though.

For Tartrazine, studies and public debates have led to more awareness and stricter labeling requirements, especially in the EU where warnings about potential effects on behaviour must be disclosed. While it’s not banned, it seems to be trending towards avoidance.

One question to end on is - what’s next? Assuming RFK and the HHS ban all 100 additives on his list, what will replace them? Will we see more natural ingredients, or will a new class of synthetic additives simply take their place? Food manufacturers aren’t going to stop making brightly colored, shelf-stable products, so the market will find alternatives.

Whether those alternatives are healthier or simply “less controversial” remains to be seen. If we are sticking with “the devil we know” or swapping them for a new unknown, I’ll be keeping an eye on the research, and hoping to help folks make informed choices about what’s in the food we eat.