Red dye #3 banned due to link to cancer, yet still being sold until 2027

One has to take a step back and ask the question, why do we have chemicals that have generic names such as red dye #3 added to our foods? What happened to #1 and #2? And why are we using such chemicals in the first place instead of actual food? It’s when you start to ask these questions that you realize there is more to this story. And the story in this case is disturbing. While the decision to remove red dye #3 from food and drugs is good news for everyone’s health, it is a testament of the times we live in that it took so long to even get to this place, and how much further we have to go.

Long story short, in the year 2025, humans more than ever have to be mindful of what is sold to them under fancy brand names, cryptic names for ingredients, and behind fancy and compelling packaging and label design. Because the reality is that most food producers and manufacturers don’t care about your health, they only care you hand over your hard earned money and buy their product. Even if they have to accomplish that through trickery. For example, adding chemical dyes into foods to lure you into thinking this food came from nature, when in fact, it did not.

So it is up to each individual; caveat emptor. Each individual must become familiar with the laws in place to protect themself, and the laws in place to protect the producer, and then make educated decision on their purchasing choices. But that is no easy task. If you look at history of how the FDA even came to be, it is a history of a disturbing uphill battle that was controlled by corrupt manufacturers, or maybe they just honestly didn’t know any better.

While we have come a long way from the days of adding formaldehyde to milk, borax to your butter, or mercury to color that candy, it is still a constant battle to convince the producers to only put food in our food. Do they really need to add anything at all? If you want to read about this very history, you can read The Poison Squad by Deborah Bloom. (Link is to my my book review.)

Truth be told, food does spoil quickly. There are many tricks to make your food last longer and look appealing. I’m currently reading a book titled Frostbite by Nicola Twilley and will likely be writing a book review about it soon. I am learning things about our food that I never imagined they would do to our food, even organic food. But as stated earlier, food spoils, and things have to be done to preserve the food so it stays fresh on the shelf until it gets to the consumers home.

Today we have a variety of ways that we can test for safety, and if something still qualifies as food. The problem is that these tests costs money, and there is not enough investment capital funding new, safer techniques to preserve our food when the old ways are approved and making money. So we are in a vicious cycle. And when one looks at the staggering cancer numbers, we have to stop and ask ourselves, how much is that a result of that toxic “food” cycle that our society is stuck in? But it’s worse than you think.

For instance, I find it disturbing that while cancer has been shown as a result of this chemical called red dye #3, unlike product recalls due to things like E. coli where products are pulled off the shelves and people can bring the package of food back to the store for a refund, when it comes to these added chemicals, there is no such action taken.

And why not? Because the E. coli can harm someone now, and the red dye #3 takes years to cause the harm? Oh wait, they are claiming that the harm was only shown in rats? Not in humans? Oh, that must make it OK then right? Yeah, that makes complete sense (sarcasm). This petroleum based product, called Erythrosine, also known as E127 and Red No. 3, is an organoiodine compound, specifically a derivative of fluorone. Yeah, a chemical that is not made from food. But it’s safe? Because there’s no long term studies on humans to show it’s not? Yet the safety of this chemical has been in question for decades? Yeah, perfect sense.

So it is apparently more important to government agencies to allow the producers/sellers to sell off their inventory rather than forcing an immediate moratorium. Oh, re-formulate, right. So sell off their current inventory as they spend two years reformulating a recipe? Because it takes over two years to  change a food recipe? So what they are telling us is that it’s OK to harm humans with products, until 2027 (or 2028 in the case of colors in medications) because we can’t have the businesses harmed? Because the business still has to make money? Because we are being fed “food” that apparently takes two years to reformulate? Wow, grandma’s recipe must be something real special.

I say shame on the producers and sellers who continue to support this practice, by continuing to harm humans, and shame on the regulators who allow this practice to continue. Maybe they get cushy job offers from the companies or something. Who knows what goes on behind close doors. But shaming is not enough, for they will likely never see my post, nor ever live up to their actions. So it’s up to us as individuals to protect ourselves.

How do you do that? Use the laws that are already in place to protect you. Read the ingredients and don’t buy anything that has questionable ingredients. If it’s color # whatever, chances are it’s not food. If it’s hidden behind proprietary protections such as “natural flavors,” or even “fragrance” when it comes to your personal care products, put it right back on the shelf. Don’t buy it. The best way to fight back is to not give them our money. Fortunately there are plenty of alternative brands out there that DO care about your health, and disclose all ingredients; where you can make an educated choice on what to put in your or your children’s bodies.

Check your medications. Check your pet food. Check all stuff in your fridge and cupboards. Read the ingredients, and see if this chemical is lurking in your home. If you find it, get rid of it, and replace it with a better brand.

Tell your pharmacist you want medications without red dye #3. This might be tricky especially if the medication is not a common one. In such a case, a compounding pharmacy may be able to help. But the more people that speak about their choice to not use these chemicals in their medications, the more likely they will phase them out. Oh, and if it’s a capsule that is colored, you can always break that open and mix the medication with water/juice and bypass the toxic colors in the capsule. Yes it might taste nasty, but that small discomfort is nothing compared to having to undergo chemo therapy for cancer. Or the downstream effects of such a treatment. I’ve worked in healthcare. I can tell you, chemo is not pretty. Cancer is NOT pretty, it is NOT easy, and it is definitely NOT cheap.

Speaking of cost, that is always an argument for choosing cheaper products with questionable ingredient. I get that completely. For those who know my history, you know I grew up poor. My family depended on food stamps and whatever jobs they could get. There are times you just cannot afford better quality, and I don’t judge you for that by any means; that is just reality. But, poor does not equal helpless. You can still read ingredients, and you can still make that choice, do you want to pay for your health now? Or do you want to pay for it later? Cancel your Netlfix if you have to so that you can pay the extra dollar for the higher quality food. Or simply don’t buy that candy. Because ultimately, as shown by this decision to keep the toxic chemical in your and your child’s candy until 2027, and in your  medication until 2028, that no one is looking out for you; only you can do that.

One last bit of bad news on this topic. The producers are already talking about switching to Red 40 Lake. Somehow we went from #3 to #40, as if switching from one chemical to another makes it all better. But why do they switch chemicals rather than using real food to color your food? Food such as cherries, tomatoes, strawberries? Well, because it’s cheap, and in the end, that’s all that matters. And that is unfortunate. So I must ask the question: is the color of something so important that we must take a risk with cancer?

So while we should all toast our glasses filled with organic champagne for the huge step forward in eliminating this one (of many) toxic chemical from our food supply, there is more work to do, and there are more changes that need to be made. Most importantly, we still have to read the ingredients to make sure that we as consumers know what we’re buying.

For Health,

Tober

 

Per the FDA site: [Rob the editor has highlighted key points to consider below, and provided commentary on those points.]

Constituent Update

January 15, 2025

The FDA is revoking the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 as a matter of law, based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The FDA is amending its color additive regulations to no longer allow for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs in response to a 2022 color additive petition. The petition requested the agency review whether the Delaney Clause applied and cited, among other data and information, two studies that showed cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3 due to a rat specific hormonal mechanism. [Rob the editor’s note 1: this is a reckless assumption to claim that this is specific to rats. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.] The way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans. [Rob the editor’s note 2: there is zero human toxicology data for this chemical, so the FDA is committing fraud by making the claim that this does not occur in humans. If a drug company were to make a claim in this way the FDA would absolutely prohibit it. I guess the FDA doesn’t follow their own rules.] 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. Studies in other animals and in humans did not show these effects [Rob the editor’s note 3: Dear FDA, please provide these “studies in humans” because I cannot find any on PubMed or Google Scholar.]; 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.

The Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals. This is not the first time the agency revoked an authorization based on the Delaney Clause. For example, in 2018, the FDA revoked the authorization for certain synthetic flavors based on the Delaney Clause in response to a food additive petition.

FD&C Red No. 3 is a synthetic food dye that gives foods and drinks a bright, cherry-red color. The FDA estimates that FD&C Red No. 3 is not as widely used in food and drugs when compared to other certified colors based on information available in third-party food product labeling databases, food manufacturers’ websites and other public information, and the FDA’s certification data. FD&C Red No. 3 has been primarily used in certain food products, such as candy, cakes and cupcakes, cookies, frozen desserts, and frostings and icings, as well as certain ingested drugs.

Manufacturers who use FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs will have until January 15, 2027 or January 18, 2028, respectively, to reformulate their products. Other countries still currently allow for certain uses of FD&C Red No. 3 (called erythrosine in other countries). However, foods imported to the U.S. must comply with U.S. requirements.

Additional Information

• Federal Register Notice
• FD&C Red No. 3
• Food Chemical Safety
• Color Additives Information for Consumers
• Part III: Drugs and Foods Under the 1938 Act and Its Amendments