The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a sweeping ban on Red No. 3, a synthetic dye that has been a staple in American food and medicine for over a century. This move, which has sparked both applause and skepticism, is the latest in a long-running tug-of-war between regulatory agencies, consumer groups, and industry stakeholders.
Red No. 3, also known as FD&C Red 3, is a synthetic dye derived from petroleum. It’s commonly found in candies, baked goods, and even some medications. Brands like Brach’s candy corn, Fruit by the Foot, and Betty Crocker sprinkles have long relied on the vibrant hue it provides.
The FDA’s decision to ban the dye comes under the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This 1960 law prohibits the FDA from authorizing any additive found to cause cancer in humans or animals. The FDA cited studies where male lab rats developed cancer after being exposed to high doses of Red No. 3.
However, there’s a catch: the FDA itself admitted that “available data does not raise safety concerns for humans.” This begs the question—why the sudden urgency to ban a dye that has been deemed safe for everyday consumption in humans?
Critics argue that the FDA’s decision is less about science and more about caving to pressure from activist groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). This group, along with others, has long campaigned against food dyes, claiming they are harmful to children and unnecessary for consumer products.
Thomas Galligan from CSPI even went so far as to declare, “These food dyes only serve one function in food—to make them look pretty.” It’s a statement that dismisses consumer choice and preferences in favor of bureaucratic control.
And let’s not forget the role California played in this saga. In 2023, the Golden State passed the California Food Safety Act, which banned Red No. 3 alongside other additives, citing similar concerns. Now, it seems the FDA is simply following California’s lead, raising questions about whether this is a science-based decision or a politically motivated one.
For decades, Red No. 3 has been used safely in foods, medicines, and even cosmetics. Countries like Canada and Europe still allow it under the name erythrosine, further fueling skepticism about the ban’s necessity.
The FDA has given food manufacturers until 2027 to comply, with ingested drug makers following suit by 2028. Many brands have already started phasing out the dye. Peeps, for instance, announced in 2023 that it would remove Red No. 3 from its pink and lavender varieties.
The National Confectioners Association, which previously criticized California’s law as a “slippery slope,” has cautiously supported the FDA’s decision. In a statement, the group emphasized its commitment to food safety while urging the agency to base decisions on science rather than sensationalism.
While food safety is undeniably important, the FDA’s ban raises broader concerns about government overreach. At a time when Americans are facing real challenges—rising inflation, energy costs, and global instability—is banning a food dye really the best use of federal resources?
For now, Red No. 3 joins the growing list of things deemed unacceptable by the regulatory elite. Whether this leads to a safer food supply or just another round of bureaucratic overreach remains to be seen.
