red dye No.3 Archives

red dye No.3

December 6, 2024

Spotlight on cancer-causing food additive as advocates demand FDA ban Red Dye 3

By Shannon Kelleher

In the waning days of the Biden administration, a long-fought battle over a cancer-causing food additive is again in the spotlight as consumer advocacy groups and lawmakers demand federal regulators ban Red Dye No. 3, a chemical used to give popular candies, foods and drinks their cherry-red colors.

The issue took center stage Thursday at a US Senate hearing where lawmakers grilled Jim Jones, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deputy commissioner for human foods, over the issue.

“Red 3 has been known to cause cancer in cosmetics but we still allow it to be put in our food. I don’t understand that,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville said in the hearing. “If we know something is deadly for anybody that ingests it how do we continue to just study that and not say hey, enough is enough?”

Industry studies linked Red Dye 3 to cancer in rodents more than 30 years ago, and public health groups have spent years lobbying food companies and regulators to get the chemical out of foods.

Two years ago, two dozen organizations and scientists submitted a petition to the FDA demanding a ban, citing a 1990 FDA conclusion that the chemical causes cancer when fed to rats.

Last month, 23 members of Congress sent a letter to the FDA also calling for a ban, saying the FDA “should act quickly to protect the nation’s youth from this harmful dye.” The letter noted Red Dye 3 has been banned or mostly banned in Europe, Australia and New Zealand and California has a ban on the dye in food taking effect in 2027.

“Thirty-four years of inaction is far too long,” the letter states.

In Thursday’s hearing, Jones said the agency was “hopeful” it would “be acting on that petition” in the “next few weeks.”

It is “long past time,” for the FDA to ban the dye, US Rep. Frank Pallone said in a Dec. 5 letter to the FDA. “With the holiday season in full swing where sweet treats are abundant, it is frightening that this chemical remains hidden in these foods that we and our children are eating.”

June 27, 2023

California’s “Skittles bill” could kick off broader actions against food additives

By Shannon Kelleher

After years of US debate over widely used food additives, California is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban additives found in popular candies and other processed foods.

Assembly Bill 418, which was passed by the California Assembly in May, targets red dye No. 3, titanium dioxide, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, and propyl paraben – additives linked to health problems including cancer and hormone disruption. If successful, the bill would ban these ingredients, which are used in Skittles, Hot Tamales, and Sour Patch Kids, by 2025. The California Senate Committee on Health is expected to vote Wednesday on whether to move the bill forward.

Critics say the additives have not been meaningfully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in decades despite scientific updates on their health risks, and that an FDA loophole has allowed thousands of chemicals to enter the US food system without proper safety reviews. They hope the California bill will help kick off broader nationwide efforts to reevaluate harmful food additives and ban those that jeopardize Americans’ health.

New York lawmakers proposed a similar bill in March, and earlier this month, Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky reintroduced the Food Chemical Reassessment Act, which targets food additive reforms at the federal level. The bill seeks to create an Office of Food Safety Assessment within the FDA that would reevaluate chemicals that slipped into Americans’ favorite snacks without proper or recent review by the agency.

“I think [the California bill] demonstrates that FDA is not doing its job,” said Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy at Consumer Reports, which is co-sponsoring the bill with the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “They don’t have the ability to go back and re-review some of these additives that have been approved in the past, so therefore they haven’t looked at these in many years.”