The FDA is poised to potentially ban Red Dye No. 3, a common food additive, amid growing health concerns and regulatory pressure.
At a Glance
- FDA considering ban on Red Dye No. 3 due to potential health risks
- Concerns include links to cancer and behavioral issues in children
- Dye already banned in cosmetics since 1990 and in several countries
- Decision expected soon following recent Senate hearing
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 synthetic food coloring widely used in candies, beverages, and other food products. This reassessment comes in response to mounting pressure from health advocates and lawmakers who argue that the dye poses potential health risks, particularly to children.
Red Dye No. 3, also known as Erythrosine, is a petroleum-based color additive that has been under scrutiny for decades. The FDA banned its use in cosmetics in 1990 due to evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory rats. However, the dye remains approved for use in food products in the United States, despite being banned or restricted in many other countries, including those in the European Union.
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
Health Concerns and Public Pressure
The primary concerns surrounding Red Dye No. 3 involve its potential links to cancer and behavioral problems in children. Consumer advocacy groups, including Consumer Reports and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have been urging the FDA to ban the dye in food products. These organizations cite studies suggesting that the additive may contribute to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and pose other health risks.
“It’s been banned from skin products since the 1990s. So I wonder why is it not allowed in skin products? You know, something you can’t put on your face — yet a kid can eat it,” said Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU.
The FDA’s decision to review the dye’s safety is influenced by a petition citing the Delaney Clause, a provision in federal law that prohibits the use of any food additive found to induce cancer in humans or animals. This clause has been a key argument for those advocating for the ban of Red Dye No. 3 in food products.
Regulatory Actions and Industry Response
In 2023, California took a significant step by banning the manufacture, sale, or distribution of products containing Red Dye No. 3. Similar bills have been introduced in other states, including Illinois and New York, signaling a growing trend towards stricter regulation of food additives at the state level.
The potential ban has faced opposition from industry groups such as the National Confectioners Association, which argues that state-level bans undermine FDA authority and create confusion in the marketplace. Some food companies, however, have voluntarily removed artificial dyes from their products in response to consumer demand for more natural ingredients.
FDA’s Challenges and Future Implications
During a recent Senate hearing, FDA officials expressed frustration over limited resources for food chemical safety reviews. The agency lacks a formal post-market review process for substances already in the food supply, unlike its European counterparts. This has led to calls for increased funding and a more robust system for evaluating the safety of food additives over time.
“[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, a decision on Red Dye No. 3 is expected in the coming weeks. This decision could have far-reaching implications for the food industry and potentially lead to broader changes in how food additives are regulated in the United States.
