Five Reasons to Oppose the Food Dye Ban – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to ban food dyes has sparked controversy and debate. While the temptation to use government to enforce accountability is tempting, Americans must remember that government intervention always comes at a cost.

Here are five reasons to protest the petroleum dye ban:

1. The debate is still out on the “harm” these dyes cause

Invoking the terms “poison,” “toxin,” or even “petroleum-based” are alarmist buzzwords that provoke feelings of intense emotion. The truth is far more mundane. So far, the evidence suggests these dyes are safe in the quantities consumed in foods.

The justification that the U.S. should model its standards after Europe is misguided. The European Union is notoriously risk-averse and overly restrictive, often stifling innovation and choice in the name of “safety.” A 2020 reevaluation by the EU deemed many previously scrutinized dyes safe, demonstrating how quick European regulators are to ban substances before sufficient evidence is available.

Moreover, much of the more alarming research on food dyes comes from mouse models, which have limited value when extrapolating to human outcomes. Human metabolism differs drastically, and rodent results should not be mistaken for clinical consensus. As for behavioral issues, most of those studies rely on elimination diets, not double-blind exposure trials, and remain inconclusive.

Most importantly, RFK Jr. has yet to present the public with solid evidence for his proposed ban — just anecdotal claims and cherry-picked studies. Where is the transparency? Where is the “gold-standard” research he claimed to support?

2. Protest on the economic factor

Switching from inexpensive synthetic dyes to costlier natural alternatives can raise production costs by up to 10 percent. These increased costs will be passed to consumers already facing high grocery bills.

Restricting dye options also creates unnecessary competition for limited natural resources, burdening small businesses that operate on thinner margins than major corporations. While big companies can absorb or offset these changes, mom-and-pop producers will be squeezed.

In the long run, this only strengthens corporate dominance. As small players are priced out, the remaining giants will face less competition — and fewer incentives to keep prices low. Ironically, this government interference may achieve the opposite of what it claims to stand for.

This brings us to the next point.

3. This policy bolsters corporations and fuels crony capitalism

Far from holding corporations accountable, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal is likely to achieve the opposite. It would embolden large food conglomerates while crushing smaller competitors. Big corporations with deep legal teams and regulatory infrastructure can absorb compliance costs and navigate bureaucratic hurdles with minimal disruption. Small businesses, on the other hand, lack these resources.

One survey found that small firms spend 69 percent more per employee on regulatory compliance than large firms. That means less money for innovation, growth, or hiring — and more spent on paperwork and legal fees. As a result, fewer small businesses can survive or enter the market. What follows is predictable: consolidation, reduced consumer choice, and higher prices as competition dries up.

In manufacturing alone, federal regulations cost small firms over $50,000 per employee each year. The allure to “keep corporations in check” through government mandates is a siren’s call. It may sound noble, but in reality, it drags us further from the principles of liberty and toward centralized control.

The better path? Less regulation, more market freedom. It may be slower, but it’s sustainable and allows for quicker adaptation without regulatory burden — and it respects the independence of both producers and consumers.

4. Personal choice matters — and so do differing experiences

This point may not be steeped in data, but it speaks to something just as important: individuality. People are different. Many Americans regularly consume foods with dyes and experience no health issues whatsoever. Some people may even prefer certain dyed products because these items are more affordable. Even if individuals or families try to limit their intake, they might still choose to purchase dyed items in foods consumed less frequently — simply because of the reduced cost.

Dr. Singer at the Cato Institute has pointed out that health decisions are best made by individuals, not by bureaucrats in Washington. Most of us know from everyday experience that people follow wildly different diets and routines. What might be detrimental to one person’s health could be entirely manageable for another.

No one’s habits serve as a universal model, but these examples reinforce a key principle: health choices should be left to individuals, not dictated from above.

5. Choices over your health are a liberty

Liberty is a human right — liberty, property, and life — not to be infringed on by government decree.

READ MORE from Matthew Williams:

False Justifications for Trump’s Tariff Policy

RFK Jr. Debunks Critics and Confirms Open-Mindedness on Vaccines

Matthew Williams is an investigator for pharma and a freelance writer focusing on health, healthcare, pharma reform, and free market solutions. Follow him on X @Back2TheCenter.