“From Gasoline to Gummy Bears: How Petrochemicals Invaded the U.S. Food Supply”

Eating Colorful Chemicals

Today, Americans regularly consume vibrant red candies, neon orange cheeses, and brightly colored sodas — many of which get their hues from petroleum-derived synthetic dyes. These additives, largely invisible in their pervasiveness, are linked to a range of health issues including hyperactivity in children, allergies, and even potential carcinogenic effects. Yet their place in the American diet is the result of decades of industrial, political, and regulatory developments.

This report explores the history of how petroleum-based dyes entered the U.S. food supply, why they became so widespread, and the scientific and policy battles still being fought today.

Origins of Artificial Dyes: From Coal Tar to Crayola

The story of synthetic food dyes begins not with food — but with fabric.

In 1856, English chemist William Henry Perkin accidentally discovered the first synthetic dye, mauveine, from coal tar, a byproduct of coal processing. This launched the synthetic dye industry, and by the late 19th century, these coal tar-based colors were being tested in everything from textiles to cosmetics — and eventually food.

The shift from coal tar to petroleum happened as oil refining expanded. Petroleum offered similar molecular structures for dye manufacturing but became more cost-effective after the rise of Standard Oil and the U.S. petrochemical industry in the early 20th century.

The U.S. Embraces Industrial Food Coloring (1906–1938)

Food adulteration was rampant in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Toxic additives, including lead, mercury, and arsenic, were used to enhance food appearance. Public outcry — spurred by exposés like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle — led Congress to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the first federal law to regulate food and drugs.

This law gave the federal government authority to regulate food dyes and led to the creation of the original list of approved synthetic dyes, then called “coal tar colors.” By 1907, the USDA approved seven dyes for food use.

In 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) was passed, moving oversight to the newly formed Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FD&C Act laid the foundation for today’s color additive regulations and required manufacturers to prove the safety of synthetic dyes.

The Petroleum Connection: Post-War Expansion (1940s–1960s)

After World War II, the U.S. saw an explosion in industrial and chemical manufacturing. Major petroleum companies like DuPont, Monsanto, and BASF diversified into food additives and dyes. These companies refined petroleum to produce aniline dyes, a class of synthetic colors derived from aromatic hydrocarbons.

Food manufacturers loved them. These dyes were:

• Bright and stable

• Cheap to produce

• Longer lasting than natural dyes

By the 1950s, synthetic petroleum-based dyes were being used in everything from sodas to cereals to snacks.

The FDA’s certification program allowed these dyes to flourish. Under this program, each batch of colorant had to pass purity standards before use. However, long-term health effects were not fully understood or tested.

Safety Scandals and Public Backlash (1960s–1970s)

The 1960s and 1970s marked growing skepticism of synthetic additives.

• In 1976, the FDA banned Red Dye No. 2 (Amaranth) after studies suggested it caused cancer in rats.

• Parents and health advocates raised concerns over dyes’ link to child hyperactivity and behavioral issues.

• The Feingold Diet, created by Dr. Benjamin Feingold, gained traction as it claimed that avoiding artificial colors (and flavors) could reduce symptoms of ADHD.

This era revealed the regulatory gap: many dyes had been grandfathered in without comprehensive modern testing.

Industry Influence and Regulatory Capture

Despite growing concerns, industry lobbying played a critical role in maintaining the use of petroleum-based dyes. The FDA, under pressure from food manufacturers, continued to permit these additives, often relying on industry-funded research.

Petroleum-based dyes also benefited from being listed as “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) — a classification that allowed many additives to bypass extensive testing if they had a long history of use.

As demand for colorful processed foods increased, companies doubled down on synthetic dyes instead of switching to natural alternatives like turmeric, beet juice, or annatto.

European Bans and America’s Reluctance to Change (2000s–Present)

Starting in the 2000s, European countries began banning or requiring warning labels on petroleum-based dyes. The European Union’s 2010 directive required a warning label on foods containing dyes like Yellow 5 (Tartrazine) and Red 40:

“May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

In response, companies like Kraft and Nestlé reformulated their products in Europe — replacing synthetic dyes with natural ones — but did not do so in the U.S. where regulations were looser.

This disparity led to criticism from U.S. consumer advocacy groups such as:

• Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)

• Environmental Working Group (EWG)

Their reports urged the FDA to follow Europe’s lead, citing potential links to cancer, immune system disruption, and neurodevelopmental harm in children.

The FDA’s Position and the Science Debate

The FDA maintains that approved synthetic dyes are safe within specified limits, stating that there is “insufficient evidence” to justify banning them outright. However, they acknowledge that some children may be sensitive to them.

Recent peer-reviewed studies, such as those published in journals like Environmental Health Perspectives and Behavioral Neuroscience, point to a potential link between food dyes and:

• Behavioral issues

• Neurodevelopmental delays

• Increased oxidative stress

The FDA held a public hearing in 2011 on the issue, but chose not to ban synthetic dyes, instead asking for more research.

Where We Are Today: The Push for Cleaner Labels

In recent years, consumer demand has driven major brands to start shifting away from petroleum dyes:

• General Mills removed artificial dyes from Trix in 2015 (though later brought them back due to customer feedback).

• Panera Bread, Trader Joe’s, and Whole Foods ban petroleum-based dyes in their house brands.

• Organic and clean-label trends are pushing a slow but steady move to natural coloring agents.

Still, eight petroleum-derived synthetic dyes remain FDA-approved in the U.S.:

As public health concerns over food additives grow, a new cultural push — often summarized by the phrase “Make America Healthy Again” — has emerged. This movement emphasizes reclaiming the integrity of the American food supply by eliminating harmful ingredients, especially petroleum-based food dyes.

Core Beliefs of the Movement:

• Health Over Hype: Advocates argue that food should nourish, not harm. Artificial dyes are seen as unnecessary and potentially toxic.

• Transparency and Labeling: There is strong support for clear labeling of synthetic dyes and even mandatory warning labels, similar to European policies.

• Natural Substitutes: The movement encourages replacing dyes with plant-based alternatives such as beet juice, turmeric, spirulina, and paprika extract.

• Holding Big Food Accountable: Many believe that food corporations have prioritized cost and shelf appeal over consumer well-being, enabled by weak regulatory enforcement.

• Protecting Children’s Health: A major focus is on school lunches, candies, cereals, and snack foods disproportionately marketed to children — the demographic most vulnerable to behavior and attention issues from food dyes.

Key Voices and Organizations:

• Moms Across America

• Environmental Working Group (EWG)

• The Feingold Association

• Children’s Health Defense

Many of these groups have partnered with influencers and politicians to push for legislative changes. In 2023, a California bill proposed banning Red 3 and other additives in school foods — a sign that pressure is mounting.

Conclusion: Bright Colors, Dark Origins

Petroleum-based dyes in American food are a legacy of industrial convenience, regulatory permissiveness, and aggressive corporate lobbying. While many countries have rejected these additives or mandated warning labels, the U.S. has largely maintained their status quo — placing the burden on consumers to self-regulate.

As public awareness grows and market forces shift, the colorful future of American food may depend less on oil and more on nature.

---

Sources:

1. FDA – Color Additives History and Regulation: https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/color-additive-inventory

2. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) – Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks (2010): https://cspinet.org

3. Feingold Association – Hyperactivity and Food Additives: https://www.feingold.org

4. Environmental Working Group – Food Scores Database: https://www.ewg.org/foodscores

5. “Toxicological Effects of Food Dyes” – Environmental Health Perspectives, 2011

6. “Artificial Food Color Additives and Child Behavior” – Pediatrics, 2012

7. U.S. National Library of Medicine – PubChem database on synthetic dyes

8. NY Times – “Food Companies Remove Artificial Dyes, Bowing to Consumer Pressure,” 2015

9. EU Food Additive Regulation 1333/2008 – European Commission

10. ScienceDirect – “The Influence of Artificial Food Colors on Behavior and Mood in Children” (2014)

11. USDA Historical Documents – Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Archives

12. National Geographic – “Why the FDA Still Allows These Dyes in Your Food,” 2020