Today the FDA issued a highly anticipated ban on Red Dye No. 3 as a color additive for food and ingested drugs. In their public statement, the FDA says in the same span of 295 words that Red No. 3 is being banned for representing a threat to public health, while also saying “there is no evidence showing FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in humans.“
Stephen Kent, an analyst for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), an international consumer advocacy group, said of the FDA action:
“These color additives are in food and medicines for a reason, and it’s because consumers by-in-large enjoy the products more when they’re aesthetically pleasing. The campaign against Red No. 3 has been a scientific empty vessel from the start. Proponents of this ban will say that it’s not a big deal to have cereal, frozen treats and cupcakes be less colorful when public health is at stake, but they’ve failed to show evidence of harm and have instead relied on misinformation campaigns by social media influencers to frighten the public,” said Stephe Kent.
The FDA is relying on enforcing the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, which prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.
The ban takes effect in January 2027, offering further evidence of the lack of emergency or public health impact of these common additives on consumers.
Kent continuou, “You could argue the FDA is simply enforcing the law as it is written. When rats were exposed to the dye at extraordinarily high levels, cancer was a result – but it simply isn’t the case in human beings, and they know it. So the law needs to be changed and the public needs better information about the known risks. Red Dye No. 3 isn’t harmful, so we’re just going to have less visually appealing goods because of a law from 1960.”
Read more about the Red No. 3 debate from the CCC
Bill Wirtz of the Consumer Choice Center told Newsmax prior to the FDA ban, “Here’s the crucial point to consider: The word “linked” does a lot of heavy lifting here because this particular dye only affected rats that were given unusually high doses in scientific studies. One could write at length about the reliability of animal studies and what they really mean for humans, but the mere fact that the doses were much higher than what even a human would consume shows us that environmental activists do not understand the concept of dosage. Too much of anything will be bad for you — in fact, “too much” describes quite literally the exact quantity that is excessive. For instance, this is equally true for glyphosate residues in beer or aspartame sweetener in Diet Coke. You would need to drink 264 gallons of beer for the glyphosate to adversely affect you or gulp down 36 cans of sugar-free Coke for the aspartame to be bad for you.”
OU PERGUNTAS DA MÍDIA OU ENTREVISTAS CONTATO:
Stephen Kent
Diretor de mídia, Consumer Choice Center
stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org
###
O Consumer Choice Center é um grupo independente e apartidário de defesa do consumidor que defende os benefícios da liberdade de escolha, inovação e abundância na vida cotidiana para consumidores em mais de 100 países. Monitoramos de perto as tendências regulatórias em Washington, Bruxelas, Ottawa, Brasília, Londres e Genebra. www.consumerchoicecenter.org