The FDA’s upcoming decision could spell the end for artificial red dye No. 3, a staple in American food and drink products for decades.
At a Glance
- The FDA is considering a ban on red dye No. 3 due to health concerns.
- Red dye No. 3 is linked to cancer and behavioral issues in scientific studies.
- The dye is banned in cosmetics and largely prohibited in the European Union.
- California has already banned the dye, and bills are pending in Illinois and New York.
The Rise and Fall of Red Dye No. 3
Red dye No. 3, once approved in 1969, is under scrutiny as the FDA evaluates a potential ban. This dye, predominantly used in candies and sodas, has been highlighted for its petroleum-based origin. While its cosmetic application faced prohibition in 1990, due to carcinogenic risks demonstrated in animal studies, it remains in food and ingested drugs. Despite criticism, the FDA maintains its stance that proper regulatory adherence ensures safety.
Public health advocates have consistently voiced concerns regarding the dye’s potential links to cancer and behavioral issues in children. While the FDA has not found sufficient evidence to definitively prove human risks, it has recognized red dye No. 3 as a priority for review. The looming decision has prompted industry and consumer interest, especially with increased adoption of bans, notably in California.
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/oxjLuJyVRj
— NBC News (@NBCNews) December 7, 2024
Industry and Legislative Responses
Members of Congress have already petitioned the FDA, urging a formal ban on the food dye, citing health dangers. State-level legislative actions mirror federal efforts, with bills introduced in Illinois and New York. “A ban on red dye 3 is not only statutorily required, but it is also feasible—alternatives are widely available,” a congressional letter stated. Meanwhile, the National Confectioners Association opposes state bans, which they argue increase costs and create regulation inconsistencies.
Some food manufacturers, responding to public pressures, have voluntarily removed artificial dyes from their products. In contrast, international practices, such as those in the European Union and other nations, have embraced the precautionary principle, advocating avoidance of potential risks even with inconclusive data.
Potential Regulatory Shifts and Future Implications
Amidst growing demands, the FDA is developing a post-market chemical review process. This move would re-evaluate substances, like red dye No. 3, already approved within the food supply. Currently controlling over 75% of the U.S. food supply, the FDA regulates 36 approved color additives, among which red dye No. 3 is one of nine synthetic dyes.
Thomas Galligan, a food safety expert, candidly remarked, “These food dyes only serve one function in food, to make them look pretty so you and I want to buy it, it’s a marketing tool.” Industry and consumer pressure continue to shape the conversation surrounding food additive safety. However, the FDA’s impending decision remains pivotal for the future of red dye No. 3 and similar synthetic dyes in the United States.
“These food dyes only serve one function in food, to make them look pretty so you and I want to buy it, it’s a marketing tool.” – Thomas Galligan
The anticipation surrounding the FDA’s decision marks a crucial moment for public health advocacy and regulatory policies. With a review process anticipated to conclude soon, stakeholders await the outcome with a vested interest, impacting both the food industry and consumer choices.
