RFK Jr Scores Some Wins on Plans to End Pharma TV Ads and Use of Artificial Food Dyes
U.S. Senators Sanders and King introduce bill to ban all direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and Kraft Heinz will end use of artificial food dyes by 2027.
It’s hard to say who in the Trump administration has been working the hardest.
Certainly, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is in the mix. The last time I reported on him, he had replaced an important vaccine review panel with new members who were demanding more robust analysis of data and policies before providing immunization guidance.
Kennedy has been a vocal critic of pharmaceutical advertising on television. He argues that such ads contribute to Americans being “the biggest consumers of pharmaceutical products in the world,” without corresponding improvements in public health.
The HHS Secretary is pushing policies that would either require drug ads to include more detailed risk disclosures, making them longer and costlier, or eliminate tax deductions for direct-to-consumer ads, increasing expenses for drug companies.
Nearly half of these ads air on news networks like CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, and Fox News, according to a December eMarketer report…and their revenue could be adversely impacted.
Drug ads, which are illegal in most countries, have been a hallmark of US television since the 1980s. By raising the bar on pharmaceutical ads, the Trump administration threatens a crucial revenue source for broadcasters.
Drug companies spent $5.15 billion on TV ads in 2024, a significant figure considering a recent study found that drugmakers spent almost $14 billion on direct-to-consumer ads in 2023. Despite leaner audience numbers, linear television saw an uptick in pharmaceutical ad buys in 2024, which reached $3.4 billion during the first eight months of 2024, an 8.1% year-over-year increase.
Almost 50% of those drug ads were split across news broadcasters, including MSNBC, CBS News, CNN and Fox News, according to a December report from research firm eMarketer.
The collapse of the mainstream media news outlets would be a feature and not a bug as far as many of us are concerned.
RFK plans crackdown on Big Pharma
ads🔥There’s a reason why mainstream media hates Trump & RFK Jr -> they’re Big Pharma's worst nightmare
Drug advertisements bring in billions and control legacy media while patients struggle to afford essential medications
Healthcare should… https://t.co/gWTbgnHxo6 pic.twitter.com/S8dFQHpHed
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 17, 2025
Interestingly, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME) introduced the “End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act,” a landmark bill that seeks to ban all direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs across every platform—television, radio, print, digital, and social media. This proposal marks the first comprehensive federal effort to permanently prohibit such advertising in this country.
Critics say these ads contribute to the high price of healthcare while doing little to improve care in the United States, though proponents say the advertisements can improve patients’ knowledge of healthcare. Most wealthy countries, with the U.S. and New Zealand being two notable exceptions, ban pharmaceutical drug advertisements.
The bill also represents an issue where Sanders, viewed as perhaps the most progressive senator, has found common ground with Kennedy Jr. inside the Trump administration, though the secretary has not commented on this bill specifically.
So it appears some progress is being made on this front.
Meanwhile, Kennedy’s push to remove petroleum-based food dyes seems to be making progress as well. Kraft Heinz, one of the largest food and beverage companies in the nation, has just announced that it will remove all artificial food dyes from its U.S. product lineup by the end of 2027.
This decision affects well-known brands such as Kool-Aid, Jell-O, Crystal Light, MiO, and Jet-Puffed, which currently use synthetic colorants like Red No. 40, Blue No. 1, and others.
The company removed artificial colors, preservatives and flavors from its Kraft macaroni and cheese in 2016 and its Heinz ketchup has never used artificial dyes, according to Pedro Navio, North America president at Kraft Heinz. It is unclear how removing the dyes will affect the company’s business, as consumers could perceive the products as healthier but also may be less drawn to duller colors.
The decision follows pressure from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for the food industry to pull back on artificial dyes as part of a larger so-called Make America Healthy Again platform.
The FDA in April announced a plan to phase out the use of petroleum-based synthetic dyes by the end of next year and replace them with natural alternatives. Besides the previously banned Red No. 3, other dyes that will be eliminated include red dye 40, yellow dye 5, yellow dye 6, blue dye 1, blue dye 2 and green dye 2, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said at the time.
Not sure why it takes 2 years but this is a long term win
Hey Kraft Heinz – make it less than 6 months and we’ll buy more of your products
All you’re doing now is telling us to not buy Heinz ketchup until 2027 https://t.co/pifeyETOeT
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 17, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Mark my words: we will all rue the day that Trump got into bed with RFK Jr.
A leopard does not change his spots. He’s a tort attorney that got wealthier by suing companies like Monsanto over BS claims.
The MAHA report should have tipped you off. It’s pseudoscience all the way down, written by leftist quacks using AI that created references that do not exist. It’s horrible!
This man is dangerous.
Unfortunately, right now he’s playing the right tune and everyone is cheering. That won’t last.
Exactly. It’s all pseudoscience. There’s no scientific evidence that these dyes have any negative effect on people.
Milhouse is desperately wrong. The evidence that artificial red food coloring has negative effects on people with Attention Deficit Disorder is overwhelming.
so if some people ARE BORN with ADD
should they be banned since they have negative effects on pricing of healthcare!!?!?!?!??!
And you’ll be able to actually provide links to the evidence, right?
Sorry pal. Food dyes, synthesized originally from coal tar and now petroleum, have long been controversial because of safety concerns. Many dyes have been banned because of their adverse effects on laboratory animals or inadequate testing.
Several toxicology review found that all of the nine currently US-approved dyes raise health concerns of varying degrees.
Red 3 causes cancer in animals, and there is evidence that several other dyes also are carcinogenic. Three dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) have been found to be contaminated with benzidine or other carcinogens.
At least four dyes (Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) cause hypersensitivity reactions.
Numerous microbiological and rodent studies of Yellow 5 were positive for genotoxicity. Toxicity tests on two dyes (Citrus Red 2 and Orange B) also suggest safety concerns, but Citrus Red 2 is used at low levels and only on some Florida oranges and Orange B has not been used for several years. The inadequacy of much of the testing and the evidence for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and hypersensitivity, coupled with the fact that dyes do not improve the safety or nutritional quality of foods, indicates that all of the currently used dyes should be removed from the food supply and replaced, if at all, by safer colorings.
just b/c you are not able to control yourself or others is no reason to want the government to do so
And you’ll provide links to all the sources to all the claims you made in your post, right?
“companies like Monsanto over BS claims”
You are saying the claims of Round Up causing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are bogus?
then why did the all caring
all loving government ALLOW THE SALE !!?????
Exactly.
been saying the same since the beginning
rfkkk is a danger to freedom if he wants to do,,and he does,,, more than just inform the public
Please ban nutraceutical ads too. I am sick of watching, dancing seniors, smiling through their gleaming dentures, rhapsodizing about the boundless energy supplied by their ground up vegetable capsules.
The worst: the dancing cows (morbidly obese women) in the Jardiance commercials.
The funniest is the fat ones claiming they are keeping the weight off!
As a physician, I am overjoyed that Congress may finally be moving to end the direct to consumer [DTC] advertising via television (and hopefully other media) of prescription medications. This DTC marketing creates false expectations, often interferes with patient adherence to drug dosing regimens to their unique circumstances, and contributes to fraud, waste, and abuse in health systems. We need look no further than COVID19 than to see what happens when pharma and biotech are allowed to hock their products like QVC or Temu.
Not surprising, since neither of them believe in the freedom of speech.
The treatment of commercial speech as a second-class right has no basis in the text or history of the first amendment, let alone in natural rights theory.
And the deductibility of legitimate business expenses from taxable income is a fundamental right that Congress should not be allowed to infringe. It is simply unjust to tax businesses on their gross rather than next income; it’s outright theft, and no government anywhere in the world has the right to do it. Nor is there any possible dispute that advertising is a legitimate business expense. The mere fact that businesses do advertise is sufficient proof of that.
and no government anywhere in the world has the right to do it.
Going to disagree there. A government has the right to tax whatever and however it wants. It might be unfair, predatory, against the will of the people, or even unjust. But there is nothing in the fundamental principles of the world that says they don’t have the right.
What gives them the right? Gross income is not income at all. It’s not money a person gained. What gives any government, anywhere, the right to tax it?
‘What gives them the right….’
Ultimately the barrel of the guns the armed agents of the State will point at the people who refuse to pay up as directed by the State. Might makes right is a historically effective argument.
You don’t understand “rights” do you?
What gives them right? THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
You might not like it. You might consider it unjust. But that is precisely what governments do is TAX people and things.
Here’s an ancient reference for you:
Surely you know that writing?
I will emphasize this one phrase: “will claim as his rights“
Whbat gives them the right? My cynical answer is badges, guns, and immunity.
Badges? We don’t need no stinkin badges!
Would you prefer the term “gross revenue” then?
then you are saying the american revolution should never have been fought!!??
No. That would be silly.
Again, some types or amounts of taxes might be unjust, and it’s still the right of the government to tax.
Use the language properly.
People have RIGHTS.
Government does not have RIGHTS. It has POWERS.
you know I am in complete agreement on this
they are brothers-in-harm
to america
with the cloak of helping caring bs
As someone who worked in big and small companies I believe that any business expenses related to entertainment should be taxed. There are probably quite a few other categories that should be taxed as well. What shouldn’t be taxed is investments in personal and equipment.
I’m sure I speak for everyone here when I say “Those ads are horrible!”
However, I probably speak for most here, too, when I say “Banning ads is NOT a good way to go.”
Big Pharma needs to be brought in line. And those ads are really grotesque in many cases, and frightening in others. I think they’re predatory in some ways. But banning them takes away the power of the consumer to actually know about new drugs/treatments. Without the (admittedly, slanted) information on new treatments, a great many people are stuck hearing the only “expert” they know – and Covid showed us how much many of them really know.
(I might be ok with banning some of them during the dinner hour. You know the ones. Along with that bear family that sells toilet paper. Seriously, people, showing me a bare bear’s a** is NOT what I want to see while eating my evening borscht.)
Oh, and banning ads is also basically censoring information, isn’t it? Didn’t we just go through a whole turn at that? Didn’t Trump run on stopping censorship?
There are other outlets for advertising. YouTube, radio spots, websites heck even print ads. To me the issue comes down to how to ensure the Pharma companies advertising spending isn’t influencing the coverage or lack of coverage related to their industry or their products by TV ‘media’. The day to oppose these sorts of advertising bans was many decades ago when tobacco ads were banned and that day has long since passed. Sauce for the goose. Now if we want to allow advertising on TV for all lawful products then ok but unless that’s the end state I don’t see why Pharma deserves special treatment to exempt their industry from proposed ad bans.
You are right to be concerned with the influence of the ads might have on the news organizations receiving that money. Banning the ads just makes it all go underground.
And, while I was quite young when they banned cigarette advertising, I was unconfortable with it then.
As to “other outfits”… Why does tv get singled out? Heck, most of the ads I see are on streaming services so those alternate outlets are what they’re talking about banning.
I do not think advertising should be banned for any legal product. I also think any broadcaster/service should be able to say (as long as they aren’t a monopoly, or acting as a government agent) “We aren’t going to allow that sort of thing on our ‘station’.”
Either allow or disallow bans of lawful products by broadcast media. If no bans of lawful products allowed then no whining when products Karen finds distasteful appear. The new dildo 5000 from Ronco or the anal bead o’matic from the makers of the sham wow. All or none otherwise its just hypocrisy. Personally I’d say let em all on TV with minor restrictions on times, maybe have anything goes after 8 PM.
Note that I’m not ok with gov’t bans.
I am perfectly ok with the broadcaster/service saying “No, that’s not appropriate and we won’t run it.” That’s their 1st Amendment right.
It would be ….if broadcasters didn’t ‘broadcast’ on the frequency spectrum which carries, even with lease and purchase, some lasting constraints on what/when they broadcast. You didn’t offer a limiting principle so in your view if I owned a local TV station I could run porn 24/7/365 and local carry rules would have forced cable providers to put me on their line-up.
I would be in favor of removing interference with 1A rights for individuals and businesses. I suspect there are many who will object to removing infringement on association. Others will object to content that conflicts with their religious, ideological, political beliefs. Heck we can’t get Karens to stop with pronoun police. How about HR dept? Does an employer have the legal right to squelch my free speech? What about off the clock and without reference to th business name I go on FB and call Betty in accounting a naughty word? Why would the employer be able to silence me or deter my speech on MY time?
Again I am all favor of adopting the wild west, anything goes standard and telling everyone who can’t run with the big dogs to stay on the porch. Somehow I doubt most people would approve of what that would mean in practice b/c most folks want their own freedom respected but very quickly get upset with how others use the same freedom.
I don’t have a problem with printed ads, per se. You can put more information into a print ad than you can with a 10-nanosecond appearance of the FDA=mandated “Important Safety Information” in 8-point type in white lettering in a 15-second commercial. Problem is, most patients will still only see what they want to see: some perceived patient doing well, e.g. a smiling, well-dressed/well-made up fake Stage IV lung cancer patient picking up her grandchild, without the oxygen concentrator, high dose fentanyl patch, and four-post TV=stand style walker as the poor patient moans and groans to even move an inch or two. Again, DTC creates false expectations and really makes treating patients difficult.
Agreed about the propensity of folks to see and hear what they wanted v what was written/stated.
IMO the biggest problem with healthcare delivery in the USA is the breakdown in relationship between Physician and Patient. When we moved away from Patients choosing DR and very importantly to 3rd party payer whether private IN or Gov’t IN programs it ended traditional healthcare.
The Govt and IN company penny pinching on reimbursement altered healthcare delivery into a sort of commodity v personal service. Providers gotta cycle Patients through every 15 to 20 minutes to meet production quotes like a sweatshop/ piece work garment factory. Not really their fault b/c the financial incentives and economic pressure requires it. Go.see a DR for 15 minutes, get a cursory exam and refill RX meds and they move to the next patient not n/c they want to but b/c they’d go broke otherwise ….unless they separated completely with the current system and set-up concierge care with transparent cash pricing on a fee for service basis.
So long as we are.stuck in a ‘go see the DR to get prescribed pills’ environment then DR gonna be stuck with patient questions regarding the new pills being advertised.
agree
but no banning at all even during dinner time
turn off the electronics!! or watch tv
but dont ban freedom
Many people, including my then toddler son, are allergic to many of these food dyes. Especially the red dye 6 and yellow dye. As someone who worked in the medical field I am well aquatinted with Big Pharma. They are underhanded and a real pain. I support banning these ads to the consumer. They drive the consumer to ask the Doctor for the med. Doctors hate this type of sales push. Let the rep make sales presentation. If the Doctor needs to order it he will.
Why shouldn’t the patient ask the doctor about that med? Shouldn’t you want your patient to be well-informed and asking questions? Or do you prefer they know their place and just do what the doctor says?
You and yours might not be that way, but that is a major problem with our health industry today: Shut up and listen to the expert. Again, we saw it with Covid. I don’t want to bash doctors, many of whom are pretty good people doing a hard job. But I do want to tarnish their halo a little so people can mostly handle their own health.
Then about 4-6 months later, some of those same advertised drugs get a new wave of ads of a different sort, with “non-attorney spokespeople” trawling for signees onto class-action suits for undisclosed side effects or being linked to some obscure form of cancer.
The worst effect of pharma ads is that they provide the media with a strong disincentive to report negative information regarding pharma behavior.
that is true
and thats why IF THE GOVERNMENT knows something like red dye is bad or whatever
then take the ceo to court
That’s cute… you’re assuming the government cares if people are injured or harmed. Covid and its clot shot proved otherwise.
Critics say these ads contribute to the high price of healthcare while doing little to improve care in the United States,
ironically,,, its government interference,, like free healthcare and ummm regs like these socialists want to impose that make prices go higher
stay out of our business!!
if rkkk is correct then bring the ceos into court and PROVE some sort of criminality otherwise you are liars
if rkkk is correct
You’re not doing your arguments any service when you adopt the leftist “KKK” or “Hitler” thing.
only to those that wont agree anyways b/c they are not principled people
No, it shows you’re just slinging mud and lashing out with emotions.
Just make your argument. You can do that quite well if you’re motivated to do so.
The left has attacked,,,lest you FORGET,,
milk beef apples etc etc as being a safety issue
CHOOSE YOUR LIFE ACCORDING TO YOUR PLANS
NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS
Nanny state hysteria. This is like outlawing happy meals at McDonalds.
Well MAHA has some problems
https://humanevents.com/2025/06/16/naomi-wolf-maha-leadership-is-risking-a-derailment-it-risks-losing-president-trump-and-the-republicans-the-midterms
The point in the column about consumers not being drawn to less intense food colors raises two thoughts: the packaging remains the same, with the intense colors and as an occasional eater of Kraft Mac and Cheese (for decades) I’ve not noticed a change in color intensity of the cooked product, but it is one of the ones that has already he’s the artificial dye taken from. Ah, Kraft Mac and Cheese, there is no substitute.
Good point. I have noticed that cooking my own food, it often turns out looking better than what’s in a frozen package. Though cabbage is almost never green once it’s cooked – the boxes definitely lie to you there.
DW used the purple this week, along with bright red and yellow peppers, to make ground turkey and cabbage (usually beef, but the turkey was free). It was the most visually appealing meal of the week.
I hope they ban the pharma ads. They banned the tobacco ads, so the precedent is there to ban a legal product. If you think about it, they are actually pushing hard drugs since the vast majority of people subjected to the ads do not have any need for them. Plus, they cannot get them unless they talk their doctor into writing a Rx for the controlled substance.
For all of the Leftists (Democrats) who idolize European Socialist nations,
who also ban food additives based on their scientific research (apparently not funded by Obama’s Big Pharma/Healthcare), why do you object to President Trump’s demand that we use their policies to improve our healthcare?
Scanning over these comments and others I have to wonder whether some LI residents would ever accept any scientific study no matter how well it was done.