Connect with us

Business

‘We eat with our eyes’: Pepsi plays with purple sweet potatoes and various carrot colors as it races to remove dyes, says VP of R&D

Published

4 months ago

on



Pepsi has a new challenge: keeping products like Gatorade and Cheetos vivid and colorful without the artificial dyes that U.S. consumers are increasingly rejecting.

PepsiCo, which also makes Doritos, Cap’n Crunch cereal, Funyuns and Mountain Dew, announced in April that it would accelerate a planned shift to using natural colors in its foods and beverages. Around 40% of its U.S. products now contain synthetic dyes, according to the company.

But just as it took decades for artificial colors to seep into PepsiCo’s products, removing them is likely to be a multi-year process. The company said it’s still finding new ingredients, testing consumers’ responses and waiting for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve natural alternatives. PepsiCo hasn’t committed to meeting the Trump administration’s goal of phasing out petroleum-based synthetic dyes by the end of 2026.

“We’re not going to launch a product that the consumer’s not going to enjoy,” said Chris Coleman, PepsiCo’s senior director for food research and development in North America. “We need to make sure the product is right.”

Coleman said it can take two or three years to shift a product from an artificial color to a natural one. PepsiCo has to identify a natural ingredient that will have a stable shelf life and not change a product’s flavor. Then it must ensure the availability of a safe and adequate supply. The company tests prototypes with trained experts and panels of consumers, then makes sure the new formula won’t snag its manufacturing process. It also has to design new packaging.

Experimenting with spices to color Cheetos

Tostitos and Lay’s will be the first PepsiCo brands to make the shift, with naturally dyed tortilla and potato chips expected on store shelves later this year and naturally dyed dips due to be on sale early next year. Most of the chips, dips and salsas in the two lines already are naturally colored, but there were some exceptions.

The reddish-brown tint of Tostitos Salsa Verde, for example, came from four synthetic colors: Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Red 40 and Blue 1. Coleman said the company is switching to carob powder, which gives the chips a similar color, but needed to tweak the recipe to ensure the addition of the cocoa alternative wouldn’t affect the taste.

In its Frito-Lay food labs and test kitchens in Plano, Texas, PepsiCo is experimenting with ingredients like paprika and turmeric to mimic the bright reds and oranges in products like Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, Coleman said.

The company is looking at purple sweet potatoes and various types of carrots to color drinks like Mountain Dew and Cherry 7Up, according to Damien Browne, the vice president of research and development for PepsiCo’s beverage division based in Valhalla, New York.

Getting the hue right is critical, since many consumers know products like Gatorade by their color and not necessarily their name, Browne said.

“We eat with our eyes,” he said. “If you look at a plate of food, it’s generally the different kinds of colors that will tell you what you would like or not.”

Consumer demand goes from a whisper to a roar

When the Pepsi-Cola Company was founded in 1902, the absence of artificial dyes was a point of pride. The company marketed Pepsi as “The Original Pure Food Drink” to differentiate the cola from rivals that used lead, arsenic and other toxins as food colorants before the U.S. banned them in 1906.

But synthetic dyes eventually won over food companies. They were vibrant, consistent and cheaper than natural colors. They are also rigorously tested by the FDA.

Still, PepsiCo said it started seeing a small segment of shoppers asking for products without artificial colors or flavors more than two decades ago. In 2002, it launched its Simply line of chips, which offer natural versions of products like Doritos. A dye-free organic Gatorade came out in 2016.

“We’re looking for those little signals that will become humongous in the future,” Amanda Grzeda, PepsiCo’s senior director of global sensory and consumer experience, said of the company’s close attention to consumer preferences.

Grzeda said the whisper PepsiCo detected in the early 2000s has become a roar, fueled by social media and growing consumer interest in ingredients. More than half of the consumers PepsiCo spoke to for a recent internal study said they were trying to reduce their consumption of artificial dyes, Grzeda said.

Synthetic and natural colors are in FDA’s hands

Some states, including West Virginia and Arizona, have banned artificial dyes in school lunches. But Browne said he thinks consumers are driving the push to overhaul processed foods.

“Consumers are definitely leading, and I think what we need to do is have the regulators catching up, allowing us to approve new natural ingredients to be able to meet their demand,” he said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it’s expediting approval of natural additives after calling on companies to halt their use of synthetic dyes. In May, the FDA approved three new natural color additives, including a blue color derived from algae. In July, the agency approved gardenia blue, which is derived from a flowering evergreen.

The FDA banned one petroleum-based dye, Red 3, in January because it was shown to cause cancer in lab rats. And in September, the agency proposed a ban on Orange B, a synthetic color that hasn’t been used in decades.

Six synthetic dyes remain FDA-approved and widely used, despite mixed studies that show they may cause neurobehavioral problems in some children. Red 40, for example, is used in 25,965 food and beverage items on U.S. store shelves, according to the market research firm NIQ.

But even if decades of research has shown that synthetic colors are safe, PepsiCo has to weigh public perceptions, Grzeda said.

“We could just blindly follow the science, but it probably would put us at odds with what our consumers believe and perceive in the world,” she said.

Passing taste and texture tests

PepsiCo also has to balance the needs of consumers who don’t want their favorite snacks and drinks to change or get more expensive because of the costs of natural dyes. NIQ data shows that unit sales of products advertised as free of artificial colors fell sharply in 2023 as prices rose.

Susan Mazur-Stommen, a small business owner in Hinton, West Virginia, picked up some Simply brand Cheetos Puffs recently at a convenience store because they were the only variety available. She found the texture to be much different from regular Cheetos Puffs, she said, and their pallid color made them less appetizing.

Mazur-Stommen said she agrees with the move away from petroleum-based dyes, but it’s not a critical issue for her.

“What I am looking for is the original formulation,” she said.

Ultimately, PepsiCo does not want customers to have to choose between natural colors and familiar flavors and textures, Grzeda said.

“That’s where it requires the deep science and ingredients and magic,” she said.

___

Durbin reported from Detroit.



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Business

What a Walmart CEO contender’s exit reveals about when to move on

Published

24 minutes ago

on

January 20, 2026

By



There’s no such thing as a silver medal in a CEO succession race.

In November, Walmart named U.S. chief John Furner as its next CEO, crowning him the sixth leader in the history of the world’s largest retailer. The decision also quietly closed the door on another highly regarded contender for the corner office: Kath McLay, Walmart International’s CEO and a decade-long veteran of the company. On Thursday, Walmart disclosed that McLay would depart, staying on briefly to ensure a smooth transition.

The sequence was swift, orderly, and entirely unsurprising to those who study corporate succession. Boards rarely say it out loud, but experienced executives understand intuitively that once a CEO is chosen, the long-term prospects for previously whispered-about internal candidates dim almost immediately as power consolidates around the new chief executive. 

That’s why many of the most ambitious leaders in American business don’t linger after a succession decision. They move deliberately, and often quickly, because the moment immediately after a board makes its choice is paradoxically when a near-CEO executive’s market value is at its peak. The executive has just been validated at the highest level—close enough to be seriously considered for the top job—without yet absorbing the reputational drag that can follow prolonged proximity to a decision that didn’t go their way.

In that narrow window, the story is still about capability. Search firms and directors see a leader who was trusted with scale, complexity, and board scrutiny, not someone who failed to clear the final hurdle. 

When Jeff Immelt was named CEO of General Electric in 2001, the decision concluded one of the most closely watched succession contests in modern corporate history. Among the executives developed as credible successors was Bob Nardelli, then president and CEO of GE Power Systems. Nardelli didn’t stay to see how it might play out. Within months, he left GE to become Home Depot’s CEO.

A decade later, a different scenario unfolded at Apple, but with a similar outcome. Retail chief Ron Johnson had transformed Apple’s stores into an industry-defining, highly profitable global business and was widely viewed internally as CEO-caliber. Apple’s board had long centered its succession plans on Tim Cook, and when Cook was formally named successor to Steve Jobs, it effectively closed the door on a CEO path for Johnson. He left soon after to take the top job at J.C. Penney.

The executives who leave quickly aren’t being disloyal; they’re being realistic. Remaining too long after a succession decision can quietly erode an executive’s standing, both internally and externally, as the narrative shifts from “next in line” to “still waiting.”

At Ford Motor Co., president Joe Hinrichs was widely viewed as a leading CEO contender. When the board selected Jim Hackett in 2017, Hinrichs left not long afterward. Five years later, he resurfaced as CEO of transportation company CSX. Similarly, several senior Disney executives left or were sidelined after Bob Chapek was chosen as CEO in 2020. Most notably, Kevin Mayer, Disney’s head of direct-to-consumer and international, and a widely assumed CEO contender, departed within months to briefly become CEO of TikTok.

There are exceptions. But they tend to follow a different arc.

Although longtime Nike insider Elliott Hill was not passed over in a formal succession contest, he was widely viewed as CEO-ready when the board opted for an external hire in 2020. Hill stayed on for several years and later retired. Only after performance pressures mounted and the company embarked on a strategic reset did Nike’s board reverse course, asking Hill to return as CEO in 2024. Even then, such boomerangs remain exceedingly rare.

McLay’s departure from Walmart fits the dominant pattern. By exiting promptly while remaining to support a defined transition, she preserves both her reputation and her leverage. She leaves as an executive who was close enough to be seriously considered—not one who stayed long enough to be diminished by the process.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Crypto market reels in face of tariff turmoil, Bitcoin falls below $90,000 as key legislation stalls

Published

55 minutes ago

on

January 20, 2026

By



If you don’t like the price of Bitcoin, wait five minutes, and it will change. The major cryptocurrency’s volatility has been on full display to start the year, this time dipping about 7% since last week to its current price of just under $90,000 as of mid-day Tuesday.

Other cryptocurrencies have also slid. Ethereum is down 11% in the last six days to its current price of about $3,000, and Solana is down about 14% during that time to its price of about $127. 

The dip comes as President Donald Trump threatened European nations with tariffs as they pushed back against his plans to take over Greenland, causing markets to scramble. Meanwhile, crypto markets faced an additional headwind as key legislation for the industry, known as the Clarity Act, became stalled after industry giant Coinbase unexpectedly withdrew its support late last week. 

“President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Europe has put Bitcoin under pressure,” said Russell Thompson, chief investment officer at Hilbert Group. “The postponement of the Clarity Act in the Senate committee mainly due to concerns from Coinbase eliminated a large amount of positive sentiment in the market.”

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong objected to the Clarity Act primarily on grounds that crypto owners would not be able to earn yield from stablecoins. The new uncertainty over the bill, which many assumed was on a smooth path towards a Presidential signature, has shaken the price not just of crypto assets but also the share price of companies exposed to digital assets. 

It’s uncertain whether the current headwinds will fade anytime soon. Trump has made his intentions of taking control of Greenland clear. When a group of European nations expressed solidarity with the Danish, he threatened those countries with tariffs, saying he would not back down until Greenland was purchased. Bitcoin and other risk assets subsequently fell, along with major stock indices, while the price of gold rose.

It’s not all gloom and doom for crypto, at least according to some analysts, who view Bitcoin’s correlation with macroeconomic forces as confirmation that digital assets have finally gone mainstream. 

“Bitcoin’s reactivity is another sign of its increasing integration with broader macroeconomic forces, signaling maturation rather than fragility, even as short-term volatility continues,” said Beto Aparicio, senior manager of strategic finance at Offchain Labs.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The 9 most disruptive deals of Trump’s first year back in the White House

Published

1 hour ago

on

January 20, 2026

By


President Trump lives on deals: “That’s what I do—I do deals,” he once told Bob Woodward. On the one-year anniversary of his second presidency, he’s pushing hard to make his biggest, most disruptive deal ever, one that would bring Greenland under the control of the U.S.—and the global business community is still scrambling to adapt to his approach. Here are nine of Trump’s most unorthodox deals from the past year.

Nine deals that shook the business world

April 2, 2025: Reciprocal tariffs

Trump imposes “reciprocal tariffs” on 57 countries, with each tariff understood as an opening bid in a negotiation. Several countries have since made deals. The one-on-one negotiations, unlike the multilateral system of the past 80 years, can be chaotic for companies and economies

June 13: U.S. Steel “Golden Share”

In return for allowing Nippon Steel to buy U.S. Steel, Trump requires that the U.S. receive several powers over the company, including total power over all the board’s independent directors and vetoes over locations of offices and factories. 

July 10: MP Materials

The U.S. pays $400 million for a large equity share in MP and signs a contract to buy all of MP’s rare earth magnets for 10 years. The reason for the equity stake was not disclosed.

July 14: Nvidia, Part 1

JADE GAO—AFP/Getty Images

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia H20 chips to China in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 15% of the revenue.

July 23: Columbia University

LYA CATTEL/Getty Images

The Trump administration restores $400 million of canceled federal research funding for the university under an unprecedented multipoint deal. For example, Columbia must supply data to the federal government for all applicants, broken down by race, “color,” GPA, and standardized test performance. A few other schools later make similar deals.

August 6: Apple

Bonnie Cash—UPI/Bloomberg/Getty Images

At a public appearance with Trump, CEO Tim Cook announces Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S. over four years; Trump announces Apple will be exempt from a planned tariff on imported chips that would have doubled the price of iPhones in the U.S.

August 22: Intel

Justin Sullivan—Getty Images

Intel trades the U.S. government a 9.9% equity stake in exchange for $8.9 billion that might already be owed to Intel under the CHIPS and Science Act. The deal is unusual because the company was not in immediate danger or significantly affecting the economy.

December 8: Nvidia, Part 2:

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling powerful Nvidia H200 chips in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 25% of the revenue. Both Nvidia deals are unusual because the payments to the U.S., based on exports, appear to be forbidden by the Constitution. 

December 19: Pharma

Alex Wong—Getty Images

Nine pharmaceutical companies make deals with Trump that are intended to lower drug prices. This is unusual because Trump negotiated separate deals with each company, and the terms have not been released.

All eyes this week will be watching President Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the president has hinted he’ll announce some high-stakes agreements. Expect the unexpected.

A version of this piece appears in the February/March 2026 issue of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.