MIAMI, FLORIDA – APRIL 06: In this photo illustration, the famous Peeps Easter candy, made by Just … [+]
The Food and Drug Administration may soon ban artificial red dye no. 3, thanks to the work of many public health advocates and lobbyists. Petroleum-based paint, found in thousands of products such as candy, snacks and sodas; has been linked to thyroid cancer in mice and behavioral problems in children.
Growing concerns about the paint have led the state of California to ban it, a law that will take effect in 2027. In addition, red paint no. 3 has been banned or severely restricted in many countries, including Japan, China and the European Union.
Since its approval for use in food in 1969, the FDA has reviewed the dye several times to ensure that it meets their safety requirements. Despite this, the administration banned the substance in 1990 for cosmetic use and for the application of medicinal ointments. The FDA has concluded that Red No. 3 is safe in amounts used in food.
Some scientists would disagree. Some research has shown that children who drank liquids containing food dyes experienced a small but significant increase in hyperactivity based on parent reports. Moreover, decades old studies showed that red no. 3 can cause thyroid cancer in laboratory rats.
Banning red number 3 could have very positive effects on public health. First, it can directly address and reduce the risk of health problems associated with food dyes. Removing dye from food would eliminate exposure to a substance with potentially carcinogenic and behaviorally harmful effects in children, who are disproportionately exposed to it through brightly colored foods and sweets.
Red no. 3 has no health benefits and is placed in food mainly to market the product to make it more aesthetically appealing so that children can persuade their parents to buy it. Why should the FDA and the public risk a dye if there are other alternatives such as natural dyes that are considered safe? Why take such a risk when we consider the health and well-being of our children?
Red removal no. 3 from grocery store shelves can also encourage production and investment in natural alternatives, such as paprika or beetroot juice. This would force food manufacturing companies to innovate their products to promote better health. These alternatives come with added nutritional benefits and fewer health risks. For example, paprika is known to have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
A future ban on artificial colors will also inevitably raise awareness of the importance of food and its interaction with health. This can increase consumer awareness of synthetic foods and potential health risks. People can be encouraged to look more carefully at food labels and ingredients before buying food items. The end result could be increased awareness and awareness of what we put into our bodies, which is critical in preventing chronic medical conditions like obesity and diabetes, which are on the rise in America and around the world.
A possible FDA ban on Red No. 3 would prioritize public health over consumer marketing. The ink is known for its bright red color and lower cost. Replacing it would help protect the health and well-being of our children and improve the safety and transparency of the US food supply.
The Trump administration under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hopes to examine food more carefully and assess the safety of many different potentially harmful substances. The FDA ban may also foreshadow what’s to come in the next four years in America, signaling a shift toward a more proactive approach to food safety.
After all, a possible ban on Red No. 3 would move the needle on prioritizing long-term public health over short-term marketing convenience.
