On April 22, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration announced measures designed to phase out all remaining petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the American food supply.

Leading the charge is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has pledged to Make America Healthy Again as President Donald Trump’s controversial HHS secretary. “Nobody wants to eat petroleum,” noted Kennedy recently. And petroleum-based food dyes — typically just called synthetic food dyes — are indeed derived from crude oil, the naturally occurring substance formed over millions of years from decaying plants and animals under intense heat and pressure. Part of phasing out these synthetic dyes involves transitioning to natural alternatives and accelerating their review and approval.

This shift reflects growing consumer recognition that our food system needs reform. That’s not a bad thing.

This shift reflects growing consumer recognition that our food system needs reform. That’s not a bad thing. However, real change demands more than simply removing synthetic additives. It requires a fundamental rethinking of how we produce, market and consume food in America — and a commitment to prioritizing public health over company profits.

Currently, only a handful of certified color additives are approved by the FDA to use in food. Under the Delaney Clauseof the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Actthe FDA is prohibited from approving any color additive that has been found to cause cancer in humansoranimals. And the FDA asserts that color additives are safe for consumption when used in accordance with its regulations.

The FDA plans to ban the two rarely used dyes — Citrus Red 2 and Orange B — in the upcoming months while working with the food industry to voluntarily eliminate six commonly used dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2 and Green 3) by the end of next year. The three most popular remaining dyes — Red 40Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 — account for 90% of all food dye consumption in the U.S.

Under the Biden administration, the FDA had already initiated phasing out of Red No. 3. Advocates had argued for years that the dye should be banned because of research linking it to cancer in male rats at high doses.

And there are already efforts underway in various states to cut down or eliminate the dyes.

In October, California became the first state to prohibit school cafeterias from serving foods that contain six commonly used synthetic dyes. The law will go into effect in 2027, requiring manufacturers to replace these dyes with natural alternatives. West Virginia will ban the same dyes from schools this August and from all foods sold in the state in 2028. Utah and Arizona have also enacted similar laws.

There are plenty of reasons to be wary of foods that rely on synthetic dyes. Such products are typically ultraprocessed and high in fat, sugar and sodium. The cumulative effects of repeated exposure over a lifetime aren’t well understood. Additionally, there is limited research on how different additives interact with one another — and with other ingredients in the food matrix — during processing.

The concept of “dosage makes the poison” applies here, as combinations of dyes can complicate the assessment of how much artificial dye is being consumed. But at least some studies have shown worrying impacts on kids.

In the 1960s and the 1970s, U.S. tobacco companies conducted extensive market research with children and found that they preferred red products.

A systematic review of epidemiologic research on synthetic food dyes and neurobehavioral outcomes found a correlation between synthetic food dye exposure and adverse neurobehavioral effects in some children. Furthermore, the review suggested that the FDA’s Acceptable Daily Intake levels for synthetic food dyes may not adequately protect children from behavioral effects. The study also found that children and lower-income populations tend to have higher exposures, highlighting the need to improve access to healthier food options.

Compounding this problem is the fact that children are particularly attracted to colorful snacks. This isn’t a coincidence. In the 1960s and the 1970s, U.S. tobacco companies conducted extensive market research with children and found that they preferred red products. These companies later played a leading role in shaping U.S. food marketing from 1980 to 2001, developing “hyper-palatable foods” that became staples in the American diet.

Given this research and the actions being taken in some states, many U.S. food companies have already been reformulating their products. In 2015, General Mills removed artificial colors from some of its cereals — but it reinstated them two years later following consumer complaints. General Mills now offers schools a lower-sugar, artificial color-free version of Trix cerealcomplying with the new food additive laws in California and West Virginia. Kraft Heinz removed artificial preservatives, flavors and dyes from its signature macaroni and cheese recipe in 2016. To maintain its signature yellow-orange hue, Kraft replaced artificial colorsincluding Yellow 5 and Yellow 6, with natural spices like paprika, annatto and turmeric.

At the same time, “natural” doesn’t automatically mean safer or better. For example, carmine — or the less concentrated cochineal extract — is a widely used natural red dye derived from the dried bodies of female Dactylopius coccus insects. It’s also a known allergen. Because natural colors are categorized as “exempt” from certification requirements, they are subject to less rigorous safety testing compared with synthetic dyes. Natural dyes also may require higher quantities to achieve the same vibrant colors, and they are often significantly more expensive than their synthetic counterparts. As a result, both the dosage of additives and the cost of food products may increase with new formulations.

To truly “Make America Healthy Again,” we must make nutritious foods more accessible and affordable while also reducing the overwhelming presence and consumption of ultraprocessed foods. The overconsumption of these foods is directly linked to all sorts of health problems like weight gain, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Meanwhile, healthy, whole foods remain out of reach for far too many families. Programs like Farm to Schoolwhich introduce students to locally grown produce and promote healthier eating habits, should be protected rather than halted.

But we must also resist falling into chemophobia — an irrational fear of chemicals — which only fosters unnecessary fear among consumers, makes them more vulnerable to misinformation and distracts from evidence-based solutions. Instead of superficial changes, we must confront the systemic barriers that make healthy eating a privilege rather than a basic human right.

Selina C. Wang

Selina C. Wang is an associate professor in the food science and technology department at the University of California, Davis.

Looking back on President Donald Trump’s first 100 daysNBC News has reported that his administration has faced more than 200 civil lawsuits to date — and that these lawsuits have been largely successful, with judges across the country ordering more than 100 injunctions or pauses.

Usually, I am a glass half-full kind of girl. But lately, there have been signs that many of these injunctions are not actually stopping or preventing the actions at issue.

First, even putting aside perhaps the two most glaring examples of the Trump administration’s failure to follow court orders — the cases of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and those Venezuelan men deported and imprisoned in El Salvador pursuant to Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act — there are multiple other litigations in which the administration has skirted, if not outright flouted, compliance.

In late March, for example, a Massachusetts federal judge issued a temporary restraining order forbidding the Department of Homeland Security from deporting any immigrant with a final removal order to a third country (meaning a destination other than the country designated during immigration proceedings) “UNLESS and UNTIL Defendants [the administration] provide that individual, and their respective immigration counsel, if any, with written notice of the third country to where they may be” deported and a “meaningful opportunity” to seek protection against torture. Yet through a sworn declarationa regional immigration official has now admitted, after lawyers for individual men reported that their Venezuelan clients were nonetheless deported to El Salvador, that at least four Venezuelans were deported to El Salvador after the temporary restraining order was entered. Stillthe administration insisted that it hadn’t violated the orderbecause all four were first transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then flown to El Salvador on flights operated by the Defense Department, which is not a defendant in the lawsuit, and without any Homeland Security personnel on board.

And it isn’t just the immigration context in which the administration is giving court orders a wink and a nod.

And it isn’t just the immigration context in which the administration is giving court orders a wink and a nod. Consider the administration’s efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through massive reductions in force, among other maneuvers, which a federal district court judge in Washington broadly forbid in late March. But then, an appeals court added an exception: The administration could terminate employees if, after a “particularized assessment,” such employees were determined to be “unnecessary to the performance of defendants’ [the CFPB’s] statutory duties.” Within a week, and without any proof that such assessments had taken place, the agency issued “reduction in force” notices to more than 1,400 employees, or more than 80% of its workforce.

To the original district court judge, the CFPB’s action triggered “significant grounds for concern” that the administration had not complied with court orders, and by Monday night, the appeals court all but agreedreinstating the entire injunction while the administration appeals. But can the damage be reversed? After all, internal documents and communications filed in the litigation reflect the panic and chaos that has ruled the agency for months.

But the Trump administration’s noncompliance isn’t the only barrier to meaningful courtroom victories — and for some litigants, it’s not even the most significant one.

One lawyer involved in states’ lawsuits against Trump policy initiatives and funding freezes, who requested anonymity out of fear of retribution, explained that in the cases they are litigating, the administration has largely complied with court orders. And while there have been occasional hiccups along the way, as when a funding stream that a court ordered to be restored was not turned back on, the lawyer said the Justice Department has helped resolve those issues.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court itself has become an obstacle for litigating states.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court itself has become an obstacle for litigating states. Specifically, that lawyer noted that since the high court ruled that challenges to grant terminations are essentially contract disputes over money damages between the U.S. and grant recipients, such cases must be brought in a specialized federal court, the Court of Federal Claims, where relief — much less immediate reinstatement of federal grants — could be harder to come by.

Further, the lawyer reminded me that in May, the justices will hear oral arguments on the administration’s bid to limit the impact of nationwide injunctions against Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship to the three judicial districts where those court orders were issued. Put another way, if those injunctions are effective only in those three districts, the birthright citizenship case would not only restore Trump’s executive order across most of the country, but it could also effectively end district courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That would mean plaintiffs seeking to prevent any of Trump’s executive orders from fully taking effect would have to file and win lawsuits in each and every one of the 94 federal district courts in the country to obtain the kind of relief a single court can render now.

And finally, the nature of the federal budgeting and appropriations process means that court challenges to funding freezes and revocations might soon present diminishing returns. After all, if a presidential administration suddenly cuts off congressionally appropriated funding or guts an agency created and maintained by statute, that arguably is an unconstitutional act as well as a violation of multiple statutes, both specific to that agency and governing administrative procedures generally. But what if, for the coming fiscal year, Congress implements Trump’s priorities by zeroing out funding for agency-run grant programs, medical and scientific research, and even federal employee compensation? That would likely fall into the category of what one law professor I know calls “awful but lawful.”

None of this means courts have been or will be useless in upholding the rule of law. But increasingly, my friend Steve Vladeck’s warning has become my mantra: “The courts alone can’t save us.”

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin is an BLN legal correspondent and a former litigator. Previously, she was the off-air legal analyst for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “Alex Wagner Tonight.”