When you think about the color red in food, there’s of course those occurring in nature: tomatoes, strawberries, peppers, for example. And then there are those artificially added to mimic those colors in things like yogurt or fruit drinks.
The FDA recently banned the use of one of those dyes, Red Dye No. 3. Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, joined the Standard with more about the dye and what the ban means.
This transcript has been edited for clarity:
Texas Standard: I bet you’ve been getting a lot of questions about this one. Why did the FDA ban Red Dye No. 3 in the first place?
Brian Ronholm: Well, this is an issue that’s been percolating for quite a long time. Back in 1990, the FDA made the decision to ban Red 3 in cosmetics, and that was because it was linked to cancer in animals.
So under the law, when there is a food additive, a food chemical dye, that’s linked to cancer in animals or humans, the agency needs to follow through and ban it in food as well. Well, they never took that step back in 1990.
Part of the reason was they weren’t too concerned about its link to human cancer. So it just kind of languished for years and years. So we were stuck in this kind of regulatory quandary where you weren’t able to apply Red 3 to your skin, but it was okay to ingest it in foods. And so they finally dealt with that with this most recent announcement; they finally decided to follow the law and ban it in food.
Texas Standard: Here in Texas, there’s a soda called Big Red. It’s a favorite; it’s made here. And I was checking because I was kind of concerned about this, and I found that they use Red 40, so not the same thing. But then it got me thinking, well, it’s not like there aren’t alternatives, then, to Red Dye No. 3. Why has Red 3 persisted for so long, do you think?
Ronholm: Well, that’s what’s so frustrating about this, is that there are natural substitutes that are available that are less toxic, safer. You know, the toxicity of Red 3 made it so that it was banned in a lot of parts of the world – so like the EU, Australia, etc.
And so that was particularly frustrating from a consumer perspective because they were using substitutes for food products and making them available to markets overseas. But the inferior versions of these products in the sodas and foods were left here in the U.S. And so again, that’s especially frustrating from consumers when you know that substitutes are available.
And really the only purpose of these dyes is to just make the colors brighter. There’s no nutritional value whatsoever. So when you’re dealing with all of these factors and all it’s doing is making something shinier, essentially, it has no place in our food supply.
Texas Standard: But nobody wants to eat like a white hot dog or a blue hot dog – I mean, you know, obviously people get used to what it is, and colors can affect how appetizing something seems, right? I mean, that’s a big part of why these dyes have persisted, it seems to me.
Ronholm: Yeah, that’s absolutely right. But the truth is, though, that since there are natural substitutes available that really don’t impact the color of it, don’t impact the nutrition value. So if there’s a substance that is linked to cancer and also linked to neurobehavioral problems in children, why do we want to take that risk and make that available in our foods?
Texas Standard: Now, I understand that even though No. 3 is banned, you think there’s research to suggest that other artificial dyes are suspect as well?
Ronholm: Yeah, they definitely need to be looked at. It’s been decades since the FDA has really closely scrutinized these other synthetic food dyes like Red 40, which you mentioned. There’s Yellow 5 and 6, there’s Blue 1 and 2, and there’s Green 3.
All of those have been linked to neurobehavioral problems in children. So things like attention deficit and hyperactivity. There hasn’t been any link yet to cancer in animals or humans.
But again, if this is a synthetic food dye that all it’s doing is just making something appear brighter with no nutritional value, but there’s a risk of it causing neurobehavioral problems in children, we need to take a closer look at these dyes and see if they belong in our food supply. And it’s highly likely that the data shows that they do not.
Texas Standard: I mean, they’re so ubiquitous. You think about Red 3: You could look on a label and you might not see Red 3, but you might see something called erythrosine, which I think is the same exact thing. Given how much food coloring is out there, they can seem almost impossible to avoid. What do you do if you’re trying to avoid them?
Ronholm: That’s the problem: the burden is on the consumer. And I think that’s why it’s so frustrating. And you see figures like RFK Jr tapping into this frustration about how when you look at an ingredients package, you look at the list and there are so many names that you can’t pronounce and have no idea what they are, what it means, what purpose do they serve in this food product?
And so it becomes really disorienting and burdensome for consumers. It’s like a tsunami of information that they need to keep track of, and it’s unfair to the consumer. And that’s why we need a strong FDA to look at these issues and address them adequately.