CITIZENS NEWS

The issue came to a head during a Dec. 5 Senate hearing where FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods Jim Jones faced intense questioning. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) expressed his frustration, stating, "If we know something is deadly for anybody that ingests it, how do we continue to just study that and not say, 'enough is enough'?" His sentiments were echoed by other lawmakers, who pressed Jones on the FDA's inaction despite clear evidence of the dye's carcinogenic potential. The FDA's reluctance to ban red dye No. 3 is part of a broader pattern of regulatory laxity when it comes to food additives. Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, highlighted this issue, stating, "Once chemicals are in the food system, they can stay there for as long as [companies] want because the FDA is not taking action when new evidence of harm emerges." This approach stands in stark contrast to the precautionary principle adopted by European regulators, who ban or require warning labels on food additives when there is any question about their safety. The FDA's inaction is particularly alarming given the widespread use of red dye No. 3 in popular candies, foods, and drinks, as researchers have found that it can disrupt thyroid function and even damage DNA in human liver cells.  The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has identified over 2,800 food products that contain the dye, including childhood favorites like Fruit by the Foot and Dubble Bubble chewing gum. In 2021 alone, food and drug manufacturers used approximately 200,000 pounds of red dye No. 3 in their products. Despite the FDA banning the dye from cosmetics in 1990, it remains approved for food use, with the agency citing species-specific findings in rodents as justification for its continued presence in the food supply.

Grass roots efforts

Consumer groups have long been at the forefront of the fight to remove red dye No. 3 from foods. In November 2022, a coalition of 24 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 calling for swift action, noting that red dye No. 3 has been banned or mostly banned in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as in California, which will implement a ban in 2027. The letter from Congress emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating, "Thirty-four years of inaction is far too long. We are calling on FDA to use its regulatory authority to ban red dye No. 3 from our nation's food supply before the end of this Congress." The letter was led by U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who has been a vocal advocate for stricter food regulations, including the Toxic Free Food Act and the Federal Food Administration Act. While the FDA has indicated that it may act on the petition in the coming weeks, the agency's history of inaction has left many skeptical. Melanie Benesh, vice president of Government Affairs for the EWG, noted, "This would be an easy action for the Biden Administration to take to get a cancer-causing chemical out of food." However, the potential for budget cuts under a new administration looms, raising concerns about the FDA's ability to enforce any ban. The fight against red dye No. 3 is part of a larger battle to protect consumers from harmful food additives. As states like California take action to ban the dye, it becomes increasingly clear that federal regulators are failing to prioritize public health. Consumers must remain vigilant, advocating for transparency and safety in their food supply. Only by demanding change can we hope to create a food system that prioritizes health over profit. In the end, the battle against red dye No. 3 is not just about one chemical; it is about the fundamental right of consumers to know what is in their food and to trust that it is safe. As long as the FDA continues to prioritize industry interests over public health, consumers will need to fight to protect their health and their right to know about the dangers in their food. The time for action is now, and the stakes have never been higher.