US will ban cancer-linked Red Dye No. 3 in cereal and other foods
(bloomberg.com)419 points by toomuchtodo 3 days ago
419 points by toomuchtodo 3 days ago
I think your story is half-right.
Common varieties of raspberries aren't purple, and I've never heard of raspberry flavor being purple.
So they didn't remove the red to leave blue, because there was never blue in the first place -- they just switched from red to blue, as this lengthy history explains:
https://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/pop-culture/ar...
And it was seen as a benefit because blue stood out more from the other red flavors -- cherry, strawberry, watermelon...
I said "raspberry-flavored things" and I guess in the most inclusive sense raspberries are raspberry-flavored so well done there for making me put one finger in the air in outrage and then silently pull it back down while adopting a thoughtful expression. In a less-inclusive sense, raspberry-flavored things are flavored with "mostly esters of the banana, cherry, and pineapple variety" according to the article so it could be argued that there are a lot of raspberry flavored things (including a dust cloud in space, https://next.voxcreative.com/ad/20726659/space-taste-like-ra...) but funnily enough raspberries aren't one of them.
Mindblowing. More details and photos:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_raspberry_flavor
> Food products labeled as blue raspberry flavor are commonly dyed with a bright blue synthetic food coloring, such as brilliant blue FCF (also called Blue #1) having European food coloring number E133. The blue color was used to differentiate raspberry-flavored foods from cherry-, watermelon-, and strawberry-flavored foods, each of which is typically red. The use of blue dye also partially is due to the FDA's 1976 banning of amaranth-based Red Dye No. 2, which had previously been heavily used in raspberry-flavored products.
Good god that’s awful. Like really? And people go along with this? Have they not ever had and actual raspberry?
Two things:
- it's usually sold as "blue raspberry", not "raspberry"; so you know that it's nothing natural here
- it's mostly used in soft-drinks or other foods that are ~~nothing~~ anything but natural
So my guess is that nobody was thinking they were buying something made of actual rasperries; they knew that they were buying something 100% artificial like "mango madness" or "knockout fruit punch"
Have you had blue raspberry? It's better than actual raspberry, which is why people go along with it.
Do raspberries not taste like raspberries?
What product has "blue raspberry"?
I can only think of one raspberry product I buy, and it doesn't have any dye, and is deep red colored (from the raspberries)
> "What product has "blue raspberry"?
Blue raspberry is a standard slushie colour the world over, in my experience.
Surely no visit to a UK chain cinema (Odeon/Vue) in summer is complete without a refreshing and sugar-free Tango Ice Blast?! It's the "UK’S N0.1 FROZEN DRINK BRAND", according to their own marketing.
And the two original, traditional flavours of Tango Ice Blast are Red (Cherry) and Blue (Raspberry).
In fact, I can't remember ever seeing any other flavours, although according to their website there are others:
Blue raspberry is a candy only flavor. It doesn't really taste like raspberry. Its pretty common as a flavor in the us at least, it's one of my favorite candy flavors.
If you eat a bowl of mixed blueberries and raspberries, it actually does taste like blue raspberry. It's a mixture of the two flavors.
>What product has "blue raspberry"?
Berry Blue Jell-o[0].
There are a bunch of others as well, but that's the first one that came to mind.
[0] https://www.kraftheinz.com/jell-o/products/00043000200407-be...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_raspberry_flavor
I guess you're one of today's 10,000: https://xkcd.com/1053/
I feel like you might run into it at a carnival or theme park. It's found in things like candy, Kona ice, extremely artificially flavored drinks, etc. Junk food.
From the CNN article:
> There don’t appear to be any studies establishing links between red dye No. 3 and cancer in humans, and “relevant exposure levels to FD&C Red No. 3 for humans are typically much lower than those that cause the effects shown in male rats,” the FDA said in its constituent update posted Wednesday. “Claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information.”
> But “it doesn’t matter, because the FDA mandate under the Delaney Clause says that if it shows cancer in animals or humans, they’re supposed to keep it from the food supply,” said Dr. Jennifer Pomeranz, associate professor of public health policy and management at New York University’s School of Global Public Health.
Even more confusing - the FDA still doesn't believe there's a cancer link with humans. But they are banning it anyway on a technicality.
Serious question: If there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing color, why risk it? What is the benefit?
The problem with that premise is that almost every substance has a remote chance of causing cancer in some way or another. Just ask the state of California. So you would have to ban everything if that is really your stance.
The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Otherwise, anyone can simply say X is harmful and pass regulations to get their pet bogeyman pulled off the market, and that is basically what is happening here.
> only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done
I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I think it's valid to also apply heavy scrutiny on new chemicals being added to the food chain. The default being to not allow it if it's not proven safe.
Red dye 3 probably shouldn't have been added to the food supply chain with that criteria but since it's already been there for decades with no strong link to negative outcomes there's little reason to ban it now.
> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done.
Because we're talking about food I would actually like to see the opposite. Provide peer reviewed, gold standard studies showing that what you want to put in food is in fact safe.
No, you assign a risk score as well as a cost score to all the industrial inputs that you can use. In this case, there are readily available red food dyes (eg cochineal from industrially farmed insects) that have much lower risk scores (as they are from plant and animal sources) and not significantly different cost scores.
You also need to ask, what is the cost of not having this substance? In this case, the cost would be - you have food that isn't red. Is that a substantial problem for society?
To treat these as irrelevant and boil it down to "prove it is harmful or shut up" is needlessly reductive.
No you would only have to ban things with no nutritional benefit. The comment you replied to specified the case in question: it only lends the food a color.
I'm not really pro-bureaucrat, but perhaps the standard for food should be slightly different. Just maybe, (novel) food (additives/preservatives/ingredients) should first be proven safe, rather than waiting until they're proven unsafe to prohibit them. It's not as if this was a substance humans regularly ingested for centuries and people are only now wigging out... look at the wikipedia entry for this. The only halogen that's not part of this thing is apparently bromine, the IUPAC name for the chemical's about as long as my comment here.
Proven safe against what though?
I'm a big proponent of food safety regulation, but we have to acknowledge that there's no way to prove something is safe against all possible harms it might do. There will always be a risk in food. The question is how much risk will we tolerate?
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the precautionary principle, since i believe it applies here
PP Paper :
> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done.
How about only put things in food that are contributing to the actual food? It's not just nutritional value, it's absolutely taste and texture as well. But visuals? Surely you can agree the balance of "is it worth it" is different for the color of a fruity loop than for nutritional value and taste.
You're correct that the "acceptable" line needs to be somewhere because risk isn't absolute, but that line can be in different places for different purposes. (And you can't just write off all cancer concerns because some of them probably aren't legitimate.)
I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes for this because it seems to me a highly valid stance. Why do we allow mostly unchecked, highly processed junk food in our society, only banning items that have a high level of risk of being poisonous, if at all? Especially since the main target of a lot of it is children.
Shouldn't we take the opposite approach? Make it very hard to use highly processed unnatural products, to the point where it's cheaper and easier for companies to fall back on less processed "clean label" ingredients.
I work in (well, adjacent to) the F&B sector and I can tell you that every large company knows exactly what clean food means, why it's healthier, and where to source the ingredients, and that they have equivalent food products using these either already on shelves, or waiting to be produced if there's a shift in consumer desires.
The reason that they don't already use them - the reason you mostly only see advertising for processed foods - is because the more highly processed a food is, the higher the profit margins for companies. I've seen it stated as a rule that every level of processing gives a 2x profit margin. So if you can process an item 3 times, you'll 6x your profit margins (obviously a rule of thumb rather than law).
In my experience if something is even slightly enjoyable it has a chance of causing cancer.
Alcohol causes cancer, should we reenact prohibition? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. Should we ban water?
Nothing in this world is truly free of all risk. We have to make judgement calls with every single substance. Yes, coloring food is a legitimate use with real benefits that we need to weigh against the risks. And we also need to consider the very real costs of enforcement and burden of compliance. Bans are an extreme option that does not come without costs for the government and society.
Obviously the problem is that Red no3 is so prevalent and completely unregulated. Alcohol is sold separately and ID is needed to purchase and isn't added to children's food. If the dye was only sold separately in bottles this debate wouldn't be happening.
The water thing is even more unserious so I'll ignore it.
This is a silly argument that is often made.
Everyone knows alcohol is a toxin. It is regulated. You have to be of certain age to buy it. It isn't normally in things you consume daily as a secondary ingredient in doses that would be harmful. You can taste it if it is. If you cannot taste it, you can recognize the effects from drinking it.
The dose makes the poison with any substance, that is a base tenant of toxicology. Not many people are unintentionally poisoning themselves with water.
Food and drug regulations save lives. If you want to argue against them, please at least do so in a manner that doesn't rely on absurdist examples.
The difference, I think, is that alcohol is a choice. But having a potentially dangerous dye in a pill you're forced to take is not.
We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning.
At the end of the day, the safest thing (in terms of avoiding cancer) is probably to plant some potatoes in your backyard and eat them unspiced and unbuttered for the rest of your life. Most of us prefer food that is a bit more appealing than that, however. Appealing in all aspects - taste, texture, and appearance.
Other than bakery items, what foods do you regularly eat that depend on having a specific color? I don't see how that's anything other than a marketing tool to make them stand out on store shelves. When you order something in a restaurant, you typically don't even know what their version will look like until it gets to your table. I've never, not once, added dyes to home cooking outside of cake icings and things like that.
There've been ridiculous attempts to get rid of perfectly innocent flavor enhancers before, like the fight against MSG. Take out MSG, and food tastes less good. But take out a borderline red dye, and what's the worst that happens? Factories have to sell soda that's slightly less pretty in the bottle?
> Hyperbole.
> 1. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
> 2. A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.
> 3. Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device.
From DuckDuckGo, quoting Wordnik, quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
For fun, you could grow your own seasoning (besides herbs, easy too) for those potatoes. I recently learned about the plant Salicornia - you can dehydrate them and grind them to make a green salt. I'm going to try to grow some this year.
>We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning.
I mean, we absolutely do that already. There's plenty of folks on a low sodium diet because while the salt tastes great, it's bad for them.
In this case we aren't talking about eliminating the color red entirely, we're arguing about a slightly different color. You can get red from a strawberry, raspberry, cherry skin, etc. which will work just as well. It just won't be the neon-red that red-5 produces.
Yup, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of dyes one could use to get red that are completely harmless. Although they may be more expensive, I have no clue.
Seems more like a problem with uneven application of bans.
Red dye 3 might cause cancer (maybe) but it's admittedly such a weak effect that studies aren't finding a link in humans.
Meanwhile, there are carcinogenic things like alcohol which anyone can buy (over 21).
Heck, we can't even mandate that alcohol must contain B12, which would absolutely save lives and prevent some of the serious injuries of alcoholism.
But we can ban this dye that may or may not in some very small percentage of people cause cancer.
Well, we did TRY banning alcohol, but it didn't go that well. We do at least generally attempt to prevent children from consuming alcohol, though.
Should we ban alcohol? I think people should stop drinking it, but in general I don't think the sale of things that may be harmful in some ways should be entirely prohibited, it would just be good if we minimized the amount of potentially harmful ingredients in our general food supply. e.g. if someone wanted to buy/sell Red Dye No. 3 on its own I don't think that would be a big concern.
Yeah, B12 AND B1 in alchohol alike. There are lots of people around age 50 who get admitted to social home and have irreversible B1 deficiency, labeled as "alcohol-induced B1 deficiency".
The studies that show cancer in rats involve the equivalent of you eating like a pound of the substance a day or more when the dosage you’re exposed to is in milligrams for food.
Plenty of things you eat would kill you if you ate thousands of times as much per day. Most spices. 100 cups of coffee will likely kill you.
Follow-on serious question: who gets to decide what risk is too much and what reward isn't enough for me and my body? Why should that be anyone other than me?
Because that's what we tried for a hundred years and its how we ended up with innumerable wildly dangerous products on the market. The amount of research to vet all the products in your daily life would be astronomical and that's even assuming the companies making them are honest about the ingredients. Here's the context of why the FDA was founded:
> By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products that had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, mascara that could cause blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law did not get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent.
But this is to do with food I eat. I don't feed it to other people.
Here's a better question, then: what health and safety decisions do I get to make on your behalf. What can I dictate to you that you can't do, or have to do? Can I mandate that you have to run 5 miles every day? It will be good for you to do, and it will impact others by increasing your productivity and lowering the cost of your healthcare on society. Is it reasonable that I should be able to use the threat of violence to induce you to exercise? Because that's all that regulation is: it's an outline of behaviors for which the threat of violence is a legitimate response.
Would you be upset if you ate something every day and didn't understand the risks fully and then developed a disease because of it? What if no one understood the risks aside from the entity that sold it to you? Would you be upset if someone you cared about deeply, say a child, made a mistake of never understanding there was a risk to consuming something, say, baby food, and then developed a life ending disease because of it? Would you feel responsible if you facilitated giving that person you cared about the food you chose to buy and there by aided in ending their life prematurely?
Any of these scenarios should make it obvious there has to be some sort of regulation around these things, as no one individual is an encyclopedia of toxic substances, and we exist in a bazaar of choices.
There could be a compromise, much like there is with alcohol and tobacco, that if you absolutely wanted to buy something toxic, you could do so. However, that wouldn't really necessitate that you couldn't use it to harm someone else.
Yes one member of my family would be thrilled if Red 40 was banned. They don't have an anaphylactic reaction, they "just" barf it back up shortly.
I suppose it boils down to freedom of expression. Analog is a type of red plastic does nothing to humans, but can cause cancer if rats eat it. Do we ban it? What if we're actually trying to kill rats in our area?
Humans do not eat plastic, this argument doesn't make sense.
The FDA does believe there's strong evidence for its carcinogenicity. Literally the very first paragraph points that out and links to the 2012 publication
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/
It's been banned from cosmetics since the 1990s and its restricted in food in European Union, China, and the United Kingdom and limited in Australia, and New Zealand. California was also banning it starting in 2027. The FDA is behind on this
They are banning it now so that the incoming administration can't claim credit for banning it in a few months.
> They are banning it now so that the incoming administration can't claim credit for banning it in a few months.
The incoming administration won't be banning things from our food. It will be removing regulations and allowing corporations to put whatever they want into their products no matter what the harms are. I wouldn't be surprised if the incoming administration actually reverses the Red Dye No. 3 ban outright or just guts/weakens the FDA to the point where they can't do anything about it.
We're talking about an administration that previously pulled USDA inspectors out of slaughterhouses and allowed the corporations to police themselves. It killed a rule that forced poultry processors to dispose of chickens with lesions potentially caused by a cancer-causing virus and allowed them to just cut off the tumors (assuming they catch them, they also allowed chicken and pork processors to speed up their production lines, reducing the time workers have to spot problems). It reversed bans on harmful pesticides. It cut back regulations on foods that claim to be "organic". It waived nutrition/calorie label requirements for restaurants, and it allowed food companies to make substitutions and omissions in their products without updating ingredient labels.
I expect we'll be hearing about a lot of listeria salmonella and E. Coli illnesses/deaths in the near future, and much later on we'll be here commenting on articles talking about how deregulation of the food industry and regulatory capture by the food industry have resulted in a lot of preventable deaths from cancers and illnesses.
>The incoming administration won't be banning things from our food. It will be removing regulations and allowing corporations to put whatever they want into their products no matter what the harms are.
But RFK was also complaining about all the additives added to foods in the US, and wanted to get rid of everything from ultra processed foods to seed oils?
But... they will anyway, if public sentiment favors it. If not, they'll blame the predecessor. This seems predestined to be.
From AP, seems like this has been in the works for over 2 years:
> Food and Drug Administration officials granted a 2022 petition filed by two dozen food safety and health advocates, who urged the agency to revoke authorization for the substance that gives some candies, snack cakes and maraschino cherries a bright red hue.
Historically I would agree, but we are in a new world. RFK Jr is the face of increased FDA regulation and banning of potentially toxic materials, and he is coming under the Trump administration. For the vast majority of his life, he was a Democrat Fighting frequently Republican administrations purposes of environment and health, but he is now very much rejected by The Democratic party. The Republican party seems to be welcoming him fairly warmly, although it will be interesting to see how long that persists as soon as he has some disagreement with Trump or starts making a real impact.
Personally I really hope many Democrats can put The health of our people ahead of other things and work together to make meaningful changes, because something really needs to be done. Chronic health issues have exploded and it may already be too late for multiple generations who will suffer from chronic disease their entire life as a result of this. If those of us alive and aware of these problems now don't do something to correct this course, we will be guilty of criminal negligence to our descendants in my opinion.
They never would have banned it if RFK Jr. wasn't the HHS nominee.
Incorrect.
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00830.pdf
Scroll down to "I. Introduction".
> In the Federal Register of February 17, 2023 (88 FR 10245), we announced that we filed a color additive petition (CAP 3C0323) jointly submitted by
RFK was not the HHS nominee in February 2023.
But it appears this process has been going even earlier than that: November 15, 2022 [0]
[0]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/17/2023-03...
Doesn’t that make perfect sense? First test in animals. If carcinogenic in animals then don’t move to humans. A lack of studies in human is hardly a basis for ruling it safe.
That was a sensible simplified version of the logic during my training for regulation in drugs and medical devices, at least.
I think the primary reason it was banned in California last year was all the studies correlating it to deleterious cognitive impacts on children
https://www.additudemag.com/red-dye-3-ban-adhd-news/amp/
https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/potential-impact...
If a food additive is banned in the EU, it should be banned here IMO. The EU has a good track record on what should or should not be included in food
EU law works a bit different. EU law bans everything that has not been shown to be safe (or grandfathered in) while US allows everything that has not been shown to be dangerous. Neither system is perfect.
For example, Chia seeds where illegal in EU before 2020 (but you could still buy them). Not because it was dangerous but because no company had paid money to fund studies to prove that Chia seeds are not dangerous.
I don't know whether that's literally true, but I can certainly tell you that there is no point in banning stuff nobody in the EU is thinking of using anyway. US companies are way more "adventurous" with their additives, which makes regulation here even more important.
look at the health of average person in EU vs US particularly related to food related disorders.
Include obesity, diabetes. Then move onto the GMOs and Roundup and how GMOs enabled mass use of Roundup. Roundup is now being looked into as a potential source of the increase in autism, dementia and other neurorelated conditions.
Keep digging.
It's the old "better safe than sorry" routine. Very popular with politicians and managers, who are incentivized to take action on extremely minor issues and hold them up as heroic accomplishments while avoiding all the work and mess involved with fixing _actual_ systemic and cultural problems.
Why some harmful substances are banned swiftly while others linger and whether this is about public health or legal optics.
How about the idea that it serves absolutely zero purpose, and could cause cancer?
Maybe that is reason enough to remove it from food? “Some people here” love Europe so much, they banned it for that reason. But, during this election, conservatives pushed for the same so now it’s strange how “some people here” are “pro food dyes”.
>>>How about the idea that it serves absolutely zero purpose, and could cause cancer?
I'm not going to bat for Red Dye specifically (I'd be perfectly happy for it to never be added to food), but I generally like a society that's default-allow more than default-deny. A lot of people will argue that certain things serve "zero purpose" because it's not something they personally care about. But presumably somebody wants their food to be red, or why would anyone be adding it?
I agree - except - we have a purchased and lobbied FDA that is not serving the people.
There is poison in our food.
So until there isn’t poison in our food, I think we reform the agency and go a little harder on the MBA led organizations that got us here.
"conservatives pushed for the same"
RFK Jr is basically the polar opposite of a conservative, even though he hitched his wagon to Trump after Harris refused to return his calls. Seeing the Trump base adopt RFK's positions is...super weird. Trump is extremely pro Corporation and anti-regulation. RFK is anti-corporation and super pro regulation, and believes that fast food should be banned and the government should provide every American with three organic meals a day, which isn't really a Republican platform. And there's a good chance RFK Jr has served his purpose to the MAGA group and he'll start facing opposition that leads to his elimination from the administration.
Indeed, it's normal on HN to see endless attacks on California (which had already banned both red dye #3 and 40, among others, to the extent that they can as a state) for banning potential carcinogens, making this a rather hilarious turn of events.
And FWIW, the FDA started the process for this months ago, and months earlier received a petition (from a Democrat, if it matters) to ban the dye.
RFK Jr is MAGA where it counts: Anti-vaccine, vaccines cause autism, HPV vaccine doesn't work, Covid attacks whites/black but spares jews/chinese by design.
> Trump is extremely pro Corporation and anti-regulation
Trump is actually very, very anti-corporation. It's a very prominent part of his stump speeches and campaigning. He's accusing corporations of everything.
His fortune was made from real-estate speculation and the Trump corporation is basically run like a family business. If you were try to attach a label - he is pro-aristocracy. He believes wealth tied to land and inheritance is "legitimate", and wealth tried to trade and commerce as illegitimate.
Fun fact - this is how blue raspberry was created as a flavor. Raspberry flavored things were purple, made from a combination of red and blue dye. The red dye (red no 2) was banned. So companies making raspberry flavored stuff just left the red dye out and said "raspberry is blue now" and we all went "shit yeah it is, always has been! why would raspberry be anything other than blue?"