We have been working on a series about food dyes here at Food Trends, but now I guess we have one less dye to worry about. Today, January 15th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has officially banned erythrosine or Red Dye 3.
While I like to think this ban is because the FDA is shaking in their boots right now because RFK, Jr is coming for them in just 5 days, the government doesn’t really work that quickly, this was certainly months (maybe years) in the making.
What really gets in my craw about red dye 3 is that it was banned in cosmetics over 30 years ago. Yet they still allow it in our food. Please make it make sense.
What is Red Dye 3?
Red Dye No. 3 is a dye made from petroleum found in candy and other foods to make them red, pink, or orange. It is found in over 2800 products in the United States. Children are the biggest consumers of these food dyes. Forbes says that “on a body weight basis, children 2 to 5 years old consume about twice as much of the red dye through food as the general population.” This is likely due to their love of brightly colored candy.
In 1990 Red 3 was banned from being used in cosmetics and other topical drugs because it was found it was found to cause cancer in animals. It was banned completely in Europe in 1994 with only some very tiny exceptions.
The Delaney Clause (from 1958) states that any food or ingredient shown to cause cancer in animals or humans should be banned. However, the FDA claims that the mechanism for how this dye causes cancer in rats doesn’t apply to humans and that the relative dose is small, so it wasn’t a concern. So then why was it banned from cosmetics?
In its announcement today, the FDA still claims that the additive doesn’t put humans at risk. The agency notes that exposure levels for the dye are typically much lower in people than in the studied rodents, where the cancer was seen. Other agencies and organizations disagree with the FDA’s assessment.
In 2021, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment found that red dye 3 causes behavioral problems in children. This study claimed that the FDA’s “science” was not up to date on the latest research about the effect of these dyes on the brains of children, particularly at the level we are now consuming them.
Some states like California have taken matters into their own hands and proposed or implemented various bans on food dyes, particularly red 3.
The bottom line with Red 3 is that it should have been banned 30 years ago. But for whatever reasons (lack of human evidence, financial kickbacks, laziness) the FDA has just allowed it to stay in our food supply. Until today…but we will need to be aware because it’s going to be awhile.
Red Dye 3 STILL in Our Food
When the FDA “bans” something, they give manufacturers a VERY big lead time (in my opinion) to get the ingredients out of the food. Food companies will have until January 15, 2027, and 2028 for medications containing the dye.
So this means if you want to avoid Red Dye 3, you will still need to look at the label.
So, which foods contain this dye? Anything that is bright red or pink may contain red dye 3.
Here are a few foods that are worth double-checking (some have removed the dye):
- Strawberry Fruit-by-the-Foot
- Fruit cups containing cherries
- Maraschino Cherries
- Nestle Strawberry Milk
- Brach’s Candy Corn (my favorite candy!)
- Ringpops
- Dubble Bubble Gum
- Entenmann’s Little Bites
- Hostess Ding Dongs
- Pez Hard Candies
- Don Pancho Green and Blue Tortilla Chips
- Morningstar Farms Vegetarian Bacon
For medications, it can be harder to tell because they don’t always list some of the “non-active” ingredients. Some that may have Red Dye 3 include: Tylenol PM, and some antidepressants and antibiotics.
So is the FDA making this announcement now because of the pressure of RFK and others like the Food Babe? Maybe. But if how slowly they act on anything is any indication of what’s really going on, probably not.
I do hope that in the next few years, the FDA takes a closer look at food additives and dyes, not through the lens of “Is the evidence robust enough to warrant a ban?” but instead asking themselves “Is this necessary for the healthiest food supply for our country, or is there a better alternative?”. For now, I’ll take what I can get, this is a step in the right direction for a better food supply for our children and grandchildren.
