Synthetic Food

Synthetic Food

 In January 1976, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned a popular and well-studied chemical used in food: Red 2. Food colorants have long been contentious, misunderstood and a target for chemistry researchers hunting for a breakthrough. 

Chemists first synthesized the molecule Red 2 in the late 1800s. They isolated the color from coal tar initially, then petroleum. Red 2 became the most popular dye in the food industry. Then, around 1970, the results of lab experiments seemed to challenge its safety. Public concern grew, and politicians urged the FDA to continue testing Red 2. Supporters of a ban claimed that the food colorant caused birth defects and cancer. Yet while further tests from FDA chemists proved inconclusive, the agency ordered food companies to stop using Red 2. As a result, the candymaker Mars paused making red M&Ms, although, ironically, red M&Ms did not contain the banned red dye—public anxiety had simply swelled so much that Mars wouldn’t risk losing business to any confusion.

As the U.S. government seeks additional bans on food colorants, both support and skepticism have again flooded in. In the final weeks of the Biden administration, the FDA moved to ban Red 3 from food and drugs. West Virginia has adopted the strictest ban on seven synthetic food dyes, and California has banned six.

Synthetic food dyes have just been better. Their colors tend to be more vibrant, and their chemical makeup tends to be more resilient against the (literal) pressures of food manufacturing: high temperatures, extrusion and pH changes. Natural dyes are more fragile in part because they are often extracted alongside sugar and other flavoring molecules that decompose under stress. This extra baggage also comes with an unwanted taste (unless a paprika-flavored sports drink sounds good to you). Natural food colors are often more expensive as well, and people tend to prefer buying brightly colored foods. 

However, public perception is that natural alternatives are considered safer. If the debate is a matter of health and death, then siding against synthetic food colors should be easy. But the truth is more complicated. 

“Natural” additives, such as annatto and saffron, can cause mild allergic reactions. Only a few synthetic colors have conclusive evidence of being toxic. Often, the dose required to cause harm is absurdly high. And while critics refer to synthetic food colors as “petroleum derived,” this label is misleading. “A 60 pound kid can eat 472 Skittles every day before hitting the [safe limit] for Red 40,” wrote immunologist Andrea Love in her newsletter ImmunoLogic. “A chemical behaves based on its identity, not its origin.”

The colorful dispute draws all sorts of criticism and support. Some candymakers want to keep using synthetic colorants; some consumer advocate groups fear the bans won’t be enforced. And research companies working on natural food colorants believe this is their moment.

Chemists can engineer natural dyes to with-stand heat and pH changes by enveloping them in polymers. They can also produce purer natural colors by tasking microscopic yeast to grow large batches in labs. This “fermentation-derived” color can also avoid unwanted veggie flavors. With-standing high pressures (like the force of pushing cereal through a shaping machine) is harder. But one company has invented a heat-stable blue gelatin powder based on extract from a Peruvian fruit called jagua. Jagua earned FDA approval in 2023.

In May 2025, the FDA approved three more natural colors as food additives: white calcium phosphate; a blue color from Galdieria algae; and butterfly pea flower extract, which can appear blue, purple, green or red, depending on acidity.

The red M&M remained discontinued until 1987. When it returned, Mars had switched to coloring it with Red 40—one of the synthetic dyes the FDA now wants to phase out. Which dye might be used next in the candy? Perhaps carmine, a food pigment made from crushed cochineal insects, which is already in use in European M&Ms.

 

Chemistry and society

For the first two-thirds of the 20th century, chemistry was seen by many as the science of the future. The potential of chemical products for enriching society appeared to be unlimited. Increasingly, however, and especially in the public mind, the negative aspects of chemistry have come to the fore. Disposal of chemical by-products at waste-disposal sites of limited capacity has resulted in environmental and health problems of enormous concern. The legitimate use of drugs for the medically supervised treatment of diseases has been tainted by the growing misuse of mood-altering drugs. The very word chemicals has come to be used all too frequently in a pejorative sense. There is, as a result, a danger that the pursuit and application of chemical knowledge may be seen as bearing risks that outweigh the benefits.

It is easy to underestimate the central role of chemistry in modern society, but chemical products are essential if the world’s population is to be clothed, housed, and fed. The world’s reserves of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, natural gas, and coal) will eventually be exhausted, some as soon as the 21st century, and new chemical processes and materials will provide a crucial alternative energy source. The conversion of solar energy to more concentrated, useful forms, for example, will rely heavily on discoveries in chemistry. Long-term, environmentally acceptable solutions to pollution problems are not attainable without chemical knowledge. There is much truth in the aphorism that “chemical problems require chemical solutions.” Chemical inquiry will lead to a better understanding of the behaviour of both natural and synthetic materials and to the discovery of new substances that will help future generations better supply their needs and deal with their problems.

Progress in chemistry can no longer be measured only in terms of economics and utility. The discovery and manufacture of new chemical goods must continue to be economically feasible but must be environmentally acceptable as well. The impact of new substances on the environment can now be assessed before large-scale production begins, and environmental compatibility has become a valued property of new materials. For example, compounds consisting of carbon fully bonded to chlorine and fluorine, called chlorofluorocarbons (or Freons), were believed to be ideal for their intended use when they were first discovered. They are nontoxic, nonflammable gases and volatile liquids that are very stable. These properties led to their widespread use as solvents, refrigerants, and propellants in aerosol containers. Time has shown, however, that these compounds decompose in the upper regions of the atmosphere and that the decomposition products act to destroy stratospheric ozone. Limits have now been placed on the use of chlorofluorocarbons, but it is impossible to recover the amounts already dispersed into the atmosphere.

The chlorofluorocarbon problem illustrates how difficult it is to anticipate the overall impact that new materials can have on the environment. Chemists are working to develop methods of assessment, and prevailing chemical theory provides the working tools. Once a substance has been identified as hazardous to the existing ecological balance, it is the responsibility of chemists to locate that substance and neutralize it, limiting the damage it can do or removing it from the environment entirely. The last years of the 20th century will see many new, exciting discoveries in the processes and products of chemistry. Inevitably, the harmful effects of some substances will outweigh their benefits, and their use will have to be limited. Yet, the positive impact of chemistry on society as a whole seems beyond doubt.