U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, recently reintroduced the “Do or Dye Act,” and it’s a big deal. The bill, which picks up a key piece of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” playbook, wants to kick eight nasty petroleum-based food dyes — including Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Blue No. 1 — out of our snacks and cereals.

These are the same dyes linked to health risks, particularly in children, and they’re already banned in several countries. Sure, RFK Jr. can be a lightning rod and some of his ideas are farfetched, but Democrats shouldn’t bolt just because he’s on board. This is a cause with history, science and voters on its side and it’s one where both sides can actually agree.

The dangers of synthetic food dyes aren’t new news. A 2021 California report tied them to hyperactivity and behavioral issues in kids. Some, like Red No. 3, have been flagged for cancer risks in animal studies. Since the 1950s, their use has skyrocketed 500%, a trend that has worried health experts.

Democrats have a track record of tackling this kind of thing: President John F. Kennedy tightened U.S. Food and Drug Administration rules in the ‘60s; the agency banned dyes like Red No. 1 over possible liver damage. In 1990, bipartisan support got Red No. 3 out of cosmetics. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, even signed a 2024 law banning six dyes in school lunches. This isn’t a partisan issue — it’s about keeping Americans, especially American kids, safe.

Yes, we know RFK Jr.’s name can make some Democrats twitch, especially with his history of vaccine skepticism which certainly misses the mark. But dismissing this dye ban because it aligns with his agenda would be throwing out a good idea for no reason.

The science is solid and the politics are too. A 2023 YouGov poll found 66% of Americans, including 62% of Democrats, want stricter rules on food additives. A 2024 Rasmussen Reports survey showed 71% of parents — across party lines — support banning dyes linked to health risks.

Democrats can score points here: Voters, especially younger ones and parents, are all in for cleaner food. In a 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 78% of Gen Z and Millennials said they’d back candidates prioritizing public health. Supporting Luna’s bill is a no-brainer for Dems looking to connect with their base and swing voters.

Globally, the U.S. is behind the curve on this vital health issue. The European Union slaps warning labels on foods with Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6 for their impact on kids’ behavior. Countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway have either banned these dyes or pushed companies to use natural options like beet juice or turmeric. Big brands like Kraft have already reformulated products for those markets, so why not here? Luna’s bill sets a deadline of Dec. 31, 2026. We think that’s a reasonable timeline for billion-dollar brands.

This would seem an especially ideal opportunity for Democrats, with their history of fighting for consumer safety, to join Republicans and score a bipartisan win for the wellbeing of all America — and help reestablish their consumer-oriented brand. The data’s clear, the voters are on board, and other countries are already there. Indeed, a majority of states are already moving to impose artificial dye bans of their own and not just on food products.

The legislation may pose challenges for products like Lucky Charms breakfast cereal or Cheetos chips as they switch to more natural alternatives but that seems a small price to pay to address the various health threats associated with synthetic food dyes.

_____

©2025 The Baltimore Sun. Visit at baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.