MW Think groceries are already too expensive? Wait until RFK Jr.'s food-dye ban hits.

By Charles Passy

The cost of going from synthetic to natural dyes could hike annual food costs by thousands of dollars, one data scientist warns

Are you ready to fork over even more money for some of your favorite food products?

That could be the result of the newly announced Food and Drug Administration ban on the use of several petroleum-based synthetic dyes, according to food-industry professionals and others. The dyes are found in countless items on supermarket shelves, from Flamin' Hot Cheetos $(PEP)$ to Froot Loops cereal $(KLG)$. Replacing them with natural dyes could add as much as 10% to manufacturing costs, experts told MarketWatch.

Consumers will likely be the ones to pay that extra amount, experts add. And it's an increase that could come after the inflationary hikes in recent years: Food costs rose 23.6% from 2020 to 2024, according to U.S. government data.

"It's a double whammy," said Bryan Quoc Le, a food scientist and founder of Mendocino Food Consulting.

In terms of the raw dollars, the extra costs could really add up. In a column for The Hill website, data scientist Liberty Vittert said American households might be looking at as much as a $5,000 to $9,000 hit, though Vittert based those calculations on far more than a 10% hike, claiming it was possible.

Vittert also made the point that Americans may pay a price in other ways, noting that costs related to the switch in food coloring will rise for school-lunch programs, which are taxpayer-funded.

"I am very afraid of the unintended consequences and potentially devastating effects that these food-dye bans will have on the pocketbooks of Americans who, frankly, cannot afford it," Vittert wrote.

FDA officials and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have emphasized that the phased-out banning of synthetic dyes, which include Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, and Blue No. 2, is necessary for our health and safety.

"These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children's health and development," Kennedy said in a statement.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary also noted that requiring the use of natural dyes in place of artificial ones is already standard in Europe and Canada.

As it is, three U.S. states - California, Virginia and West Virginia - have already passed measures banning some synthetic dyes, and many others are considering similar legislation.

'It's a double whammy.'Food scientist Bryan Quoc Le

Natural dyes are pricier to use for a variety of reasons, experts explain. Begin with this: Food-product formulations can require a far greater quantity of a natural dye versus a synthetic one to achieve the same coloring effect. Then, add in the fact products made with natural dyes tend to be less shelf-stable, which can mean more frequent production runs.

It's also worth noting that natural dyes require refrigeration, which is unlike the case with their synthetic counterparts, said James Herrmann, marketing director for Sensient Colors, a division of Sensient Technologies Corporation, a prominent food-technology company. In turn, that could mean added transportation and storage costs.

"All of this has to be figured out," said Herrmann of the broader financial challenges of switching from synthetic to natural dyes.

Yet another wrinkle for food manufacturers is that they will all be clamoring to purchase a high volume of natural dyes from suppliers at once as a result of the switch, experts say. That won't exactly make for a favorable pricing situation from a supply-and-demand perspective.

'The cost of a product's ingredients is a tiny part of what you pay when you buy it at the store.'Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group

Nevertheless, some organizations that monitor food safety applaud the decision to ban synthetic dyes.

"The dyes serve no purpose beyond making ultra-processed food brighter and more appealing. And they're linked to serious health harms, including neurobehavioral problems in children," said the Environmental Working Group $(EWG)$ in a statement.

Moreover, Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president for government affairs, said dye costs aren't the major factor in food pricing.

"The cost of a product's ingredients is a tiny part of what you pay when you buy it at the store. Labor, energy, marketing and transportation are the real drivers of food prices - not swapping out toxic food dyes for safer alternatives," she said.

MarketWatch reached out to several major food manufacturers regarding the government-mandated ban on the synthetic dyes. Of those who responded, none addressed the cost issue, but they said they were working to meet the government's goals.

"We recently met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy and had a very constructive conversation. We understand the agency's priority for more simple foods, and we are pleased to share that we are already taking action in this area," said cereal maker WK Kellogg in a statement.

A spokesperson for General Mills $(GIS)$ said: "The vast majority of General Mills' products are already free from certified colors. As a leader in food, we strongly support a national, industry-wide standard, and we're committed to continuing the conversation with the administration."

Experts acknowledge that many consumers do want foods free of artificial dyes. But they also want foods that look attractive - we eat with our eyes first, we often hear - so you can't ignore the role color plays.

The question is: Will consumers pay more for the natural alternative?

Renee Leber, a food scientist with the Institute of Food Technologists, thinks lines may be drawn when it comes to value-priced brands and products, since consumers are looking to them to save money. If those items become more expensive, they may lose that "value" halo and be less appealing, she explained.

Which means some products may disappear from store shelves altogether because the math no longer makes sense for manufacturers to produce them, Leber added. That is, they'll cost more to make but consumers won't pay the price difference.

Or manufacturers may find ways to cut costs, Leber noted. For example, they could be less exacting when it comes to aspects of how their products appear beyond color.

Think about your morning bowl of cereal, Leber said: "You can have more broken pieces" in it.

-Charles Passy

This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

April 24, 2025 15:29 ET (19:29 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.