The FDA is considering a ban on red dye No. 3, a common food additive, due to potential health risks, leaving many Americans wondering about the future of their favorite colorful treats.
At a Glance
- Red dye No. 3, used in various food products, is under FDA scrutiny for potential health risks
- The dye has been linked to cancer in animals and possible behavioral issues in children
- California banned red dye No. 3 in 2023, with similar bills introduced in other states
- The FDA’s decision on banning the dye is expected soon, following recent Senate hearings
FDA Reevaluates Red Dye No. 3 Safety
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing the safety of Red Dye No. 3, a petroleum-based color additive widely used in candies, drinks, and other food products. This scrutiny comes amid growing concerns about potential health risks associated with the dye, including cancer and behavioral problems in children. The FDA’s decision, expected in the coming weeks, could have far-reaching implications for the food industry and American consumers.
Red dye No. 3, also known as Erythrosine, has been a subject of controversy for decades. In 1990, the FDA banned its use in cosmetics due to evidence of carcinogenicity in lab rats. However, the dye has remained approved for use in food products, despite being largely banned in the European Union and other countries.
The FDA may finally move to ban Red No. 3, which is made from petroleum and gives food and drinks a bright cherry color.
A decision is expected in the coming weeks. https://t.co/8e980VftSV
— NBC News (@NBCNews) December 9, 2024
State-Level Actions and Industry Response
California took a proactive stance in 2023 by banning the manufacture, sale, or distribution of red dye No. 3. Similar bills have been introduced in Illinois and New York, signaling growing concern at the state level. However, the National Confectioners Association opposes state-level bans, arguing they undermine FDA authority and create confusion in the marketplace.
“It’s time to stop pretending that Illinois state legislators have the scientific expertise to make these very important regulatory decisions,” said the National Confectioners Association.
The potential ban has sparked debate among industry leaders, health advocates, and consumers. Some companies, like Kraft and Nestlé, have voluntarily removed artificial dyes from their products in response to public pressure. However, nearly 3,000 foods still contain red dye No. 3, according to the Environmental Working Group’s Food Scores database.
Health Concerns and Scientific Evidence
The primary concerns surrounding red dye No. 3 are its potential links to cancer and behavioral issues in children. While the dye has been shown to cause cancer in animals, the FDA has not banned it in food due to insufficient evidence of cancer in humans. However, research indicates that food dyes can affect children’s behavior, with 27 clinical trials showing potential harm.
The FDA’s decision is influenced by a petition citing the Delaney Clause, which prohibits classifying a color additive as safe if it induces cancer in humans or animals. This legal framework puts additional pressure on the FDA to take action.
FDA’s Challenges and Future Outlook
During recent Senate hearings, FDA officials expressed frustration over limited resources for food chemical safety reviews. Unlike Europe, the FDA lacks a formal post-market review process for substances already in the food supply, making it challenging to reassess the safety of long-approved additives.
“[Food dyes] are a priority, but I want to point out that we have a very small staff and we have repeatedly asked for better funding for chemical safety. Please look at our request for funding for the people who do this work,” said FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf.
As the FDA reviews public comments and international assessments on food dye safety, potential regulatory changes loom on the horizon. The decision on red dye No. 3 could set a precedent for how the agency handles other synthetic food additives in the future, potentially reshaping the American food landscape.
