By Shimon Herman, Staff Writer
Would you eat something knowing that it has been reported to cause cancer in animals? Well, for the past four decades, most of America has been doing just that.
Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a ban on “Red Dye 3,” a common dye used in foods, due to the potential risk of causing cancer. This petroleum-based synthetic dye is used to give many common foods and drinks their cherry red color. Astonishingly, the FDA has known for 40 years that this food additive is a dangerous substance. In 1990, the FDA banned the use of this dye in cosmetics and topical treatments due to concerning levels of cancer observed in rodents exposed to the chemical. Given that this chemical was banned in the form of lipstick, one might reasonably assume it would also be prohibited in food products. However, the FDA allowed its continued use in food, leaving many consumers questioning the rationale behind permitting a known carcinogen in edible products while banning it in non-ingestible ones.
The European Union has banned countless substances and chemicals from consumption while the FDA has remained less concerned; for example, Potassium Bromate used in many doughs and baked goods, Titanium Dioxide used as a whitening agent in candies and snacks such as skittles and oreos, and Butylated Hydroxyanisole used as a preservative in many dry cereals and cured meats. This is only a small sample, as the list of unregulated substances linked to cancer is far more extensive, raising serious concerns about the safety of many everyday products.
Most of the media only presents this side of the story, shaming the FDA for being careless and irresponsible; however, the underlying science tells us a different story.
Dr. Steven Novella, a neurologist from Connecticut, points out, “The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for Red Dye 3 based on studies in humans was set at 0.1 mg/kg/day, while the rats were exposed to 2,464 mg/kg/day throughout the life of the rat.” This means that the rats that showed signs of cancer were exposed to more than 24,000 times as much Red Dye 3 as the acceptable daily human intake. While some have contested these numbers, including Health and Wellness journalist Andrea Rice, who says that the daily acceptable intake was set at 2.5 mg/kg a day, the argument of Dr. Novella remains.
Even if the daily acceptable intake of humans was set at 2.5 mg/kg a day, that means that the rats were exposed to almost a thousand times as much Red Dye 3. Dr. Novella argues that if this food additive can be outlawed based upon results from exposure levels a thousand times greater than the allowed human exposure, then almost anything could potentially be banned.
When the FDA banned Red Dye 3. in 1990, it was made clear that the reason was not due to scientific findings. Rather the reason for the abrupt ban was due to mounting federal pressures, claiming that the FDA was violating the Delaney Clause, which strictly prohibits the approval of any food additive shown to cause cancer in humans or animals. On a scientific level, the FDA decided that the data regarding this food additive was not sufficient evidence to prove that Red Dye 3 was cancerous enough to be considered a risk for humans. There was a scientist quoted by the Washington Post in 1990 who said, “The rats were given so much red dye they were turning red.” The amount of dye the rats consumed is equivalent to humans eating 724,700 cans of fruit cocktail with colored cherries or 17,248 pieces of candy corn every day, every year for their entire life.
Additionally, in 1990, FDA officials emphasized that absorption rates between rats and humans are different. Humans metabolize substances differently, and the body processes dyes like Red Dye 3 more slowly and less efficiently. “In the studies we did in humans, we showed that only a minuscule amount of dye was absorbed, even after we administered huge amounts,” said Lewis Braverman, former Chairman of the Division of Endocrinology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. This was just another reason as to why the FDA did not feel that Red Dye 3 was worthy of being restricted.
So, why did the FDA finally pull the trigger on banning this chemical from being used in food after 40 years of denying its harmful effects? The answer is simple. Just as they had been forced to ban the chemical in 1990 due to legal pressure, similar governmental demands caused them to ban the chemical in all food and drug products in 2025.
This past year the Supreme Court ruled to abolish the Chevron Doctrine. To oversimplify what that entails: it removed the FDA’s ability to rely on its own discretion in cases like Red Dye 3. It is now up to the courts to decide whether or not scientific data provides sufficient evidence to ban chemicals such as Red Dye 3. The courts made clear how they felt about this chemical, leaving the FDA no choice but to give the lawmakers what they want: a ban on Red Dye 3.
The FDA is tasked with protecting the public by assessing the risks of substances used in foods or other products. This means that on an ethical level, the FDA relies on concrete, conclusive evidence to avoid unnecessary alarm or harm to industries and consumers.
Ultimately, excessive consumption of any substance poses potential risks. As people across the country now panic regarding similar dyes such as Yellow No. 5, Blue No. 1, and Red No. 40, it may be worth taking a step back to look at the research findings to see what the science really says. It’s crucial to maintain a balanced perspective and prioritize both scientific evidence and consumer health when considering the regulation of these substances.