Image 01 Image 03

The Kennedy Effect: FDA Banning Red Dye No. 3 From Food and Drinks

The Kennedy Effect: FDA Banning Red Dye No. 3 From Food and Drinks

Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is target of $1 million campaign to prevent him from becoming head of Health and Human Services Dept.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced plans to ban Red Dye 3, also known as FD&C Red No. 3 or erythrosine, from food products. This decision comes after decades of concerns about the potential health risks associated with this artificial food coloring.

The dye, a petroleum-based additive, has been used to give candy, soda and other products their vibrant cherry red hue. Consumer advocates said the F.D.A.’s decision to revoke the authorization was long overdue, given the agency’s decision in 1990 to ban the chemical for use in cosmetics and topical drugs.

Under federal rules, the F.D.A. is prohibited from approving food additives that cause cancer in humans or animals.

“This is wonderful news and long overdue,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, one of several organizations that petitioned the agency to take action on the additive. “Red Dye 3 is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to toxic food dyes that the F.D.A. should be addressing.”

Red Dye 3 has been associated with several health concerns based on animal studies.

“The FDA is taking action that will remove the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs,” said Jim Jones, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, in a statement.

“Evidence shows cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No.3,” he continued. “Importantly, the way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans.”

Behavior issues in children were also cited as a reason for the decision.

…{R]esearchers concluded artificial food colorings “are not a main cause of (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), but they may contribute significantly to some cases, and in some cases may additively push a youngster over the diagnostic threshold.”

Then in 2021, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment study found red dye No. 3 can make children vulnerable to behavioral issues, such as decreased attention. The report also concluded that federal levels for safe intake of food dyes at that time may not protect children’s brain health. The study noted that the current legal levels, set decades ago by the FDA, didn’t consider new research, according to the Environmental Working Group.

The FDA’s decision “ends the regulatory paradox of Red 3,” said Dr. Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, DC. But the agency “has a long way to go to reform the broken system that allowed Red 3 to remain in foods decades after it was shown to cause cancer when eaten by animals.”

This is an intriguing development, given that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is poised to take over as head of the Department of Health and Human Services.

When Kennedy reviewed the ingredient differences between Canadian and American Froot Loops, The New York Times beclowned itself by saying:

He was wrong on the ingredient count, they are roughly the same. But the Canadian version does have natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used “for freshness,” according to the ingredient label.

As it turns out, the dyes were the difference Kennedy endeavored to point out.

This is an exceedingly interesting move, in light of the upcoming confirmation hearing for Kennedy. One might even call it “The Kennedy Effect”.

If the recent hearings are any indication, be prepared for fireworks and flaming responses.

It is also worthwhile noting that over $1 million has been directed at efforts to ensure Kennedy does not get confirmed.

The efforts of the Stop RFK War Room — helmed by the group Protect Our Care — have included lobbying, grassroots advocacy urging Americans to contact their senators, paid advertising in Washington and in the states of key senators and a report on Kennedy’s anti-vaccine rhetoric that was hand delivered to Senate offices.

Protect Our Care is “fiscally sponsored” by dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund, a progressive organization that doesn’t disclose its donors. It had more than $180 million in revenue in 2023, according to its tax filings, and has reportedly received contributions from labor unions, environmental groups and Democratic superdonors including George Soros.

Other progressive groups are joining the campaign to stop Kennedy. 314 Action, a group that supports Democratic scientists running for office, convened Democrats in Congress who are doctors or nurses last week to urge senators to block Kennedy — and has spent six figures on advertising with the same message, according to a spokesperson.

However, the MAHA part of the Trump Coalition is thrilled.

Make America Healthy Again, indeed. This may be a good start, as well as a good sign.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

E Howard Hunt | January 16, 2025 at 7:13 am

Since it kills male rats congress is right to be worried.

Look at them hustle to do their jobs and deny Kennedy a win.

Also, a good time to stock up on Hawaiian Punch! The “classic” recipe will be a collectors item next year lol

Under federal rules, the F.D.A. is prohibited from approving food additives that cause cancer in humans or animals.

Everything causes cancer in lab rats, in sufficiently enormous doses. They’re specifically bred to be vulnerable to cancer. For that matter just about everything causes cancer in humans, in sufficiently enormous doses; that doesn’t mean it’s at all harmful in normal doses.

The most basic rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. Something that is toxic in large doses is harmless in smaller doses, and usually beneficial in even smaller doses.

And it’s generally the left that gets its jollies by scaring people about everything, and wanting to ban everything just on the off chance that it may harm someone. It’s a fundamentally pessimistic way of looking at the world, where everything is presumed to be harmful until it’s proven harmless. That’s a mentality that would urge us not to climb out of the ocean, let alone down from the trees.

The right is typically characterized by an optimistic view of the world as generally benevolent, and presumes new things to be harmless or beneficial unless proved otherwise. It is very skeptical of bans, and always considers the cost of avoiding something against any potential benefit of doing so. It also views lost enjoyment as a cost, while the scaremongers on the left are fundamentally joyless and so don’t see enjoyment as a benefit, or its loss as a cost.

    jhkrischel in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2025 at 9:19 am

    I’m still confused as to what benefit red dye no. 3 has – is it simply aesthetic? Does it increase sales? Increase consumption? Increase happiness? Increase shelf-life?

    It may be that all of that benefit actually accrues to the food producer, rather than the food consumer – in which case, it’s really hard to justify it even if it doesn’t cause cancer.

      Milhouse in reply to jhkrischel. | January 16, 2025 at 10:34 am

      Increasing sales, consumption, happiness, and shelf-life are all benefits to the consumer. Making something look more appealing is a benefit to the consumer, exactly like making it taste better.

        stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2025 at 11:37 am

        Well yes, aesthetic benefits are useful benefits, so long as there are no safety issues. You might find pleasure in seeing that your “cherry drink” is appropriately red in color — but what if the dye is a problem?

        I’m a physician — I deal with benefit/risk ratios all the time in medicine. Yes, a chemotherapy drug might cause real harm but there’s a potential benefit. Happiness from a red-colored drink? The risk had better be really, really, REALLY low.

          Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 16, 2025 at 5:16 pm

          On the contrary, before banning anything that has useful benefits, including aesthetic, the evidence that there is significant risk at that dosage should be really strong.

          henrybowman in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 16, 2025 at 5:43 pm

          No little umbrellas for you, party pooper.

          Milhouse proclaims that the “the evidence that there is significant risk at that dosage should be really strong.”
          You : ” The risk had better be really, really, REALLY low.”
          Most of the rest of the world (Europe in particular) is closer to your point of view than than that of Milhouse.
          I am on your side. I think the “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) should be more affirmative.

          Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 17, 2025 at 1:57 am

          Indeed, socialist dictatorial Europe is of that view. That’s precisely why we must reject it. People with that attitude should go live in Europe, or some other socialist s***hole.

          DSHornet in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 17, 2025 at 8:55 am

          Milhouse, we’re discussing food dyes, not politics. Please keep the topic in mind.
          .

          Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 18, 2025 at 10:52 am

          This is politics. Scaremongering is a major manifestation of leftist ideology.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2025 at 9:48 am

    Not all strains are bred to be cancer prone. That’s simply untrue. However, lab rats have a higher rate of chronic disease simply because they live longer than wild rats.

    Hodge in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2025 at 12:11 pm

    Milhouse is absolutely right here: the lab rats are specifically bred to be cancer-prone. Why? Well there is a logical economic reason: it saves a lot of research time, and therefore money. Think of it as sort of a “Canary in a coal mine” system where the canaries are particularly susceptible to carbon monoxide. By seeing what the rats react to -and don’t- you can eliminate a lot of things and focus on those which do cause problems.

    However, there are a couple of flaws which real scientists are or should be aware:

    1. Because rats are small, it’s a problem to give them dosages small enough to be equivalent to a human would actually consume. For example the now forgotten but infamous in its day Cyclamate study. Cyclamate was an early sugar substitute used in soft drinks.

    In 1966, a study reported that some intestinal bacteria could desulfonate cyclamate to produce cyclohexylamine, a compound suspected to have some chronic toxicity in animals. Further research resulted in a 1969 study that found the common 10:1 cyclamate–saccharin mixture increased the incidence of bladder cancer in rats. The released study was showing that eight out of 240 rats fed a mixture of saccharin and cyclamates, at levels equivalent to humans ingesting 550 cans of diet soda per day, developed bladder tumors.

    2. Rats aren’t human. Even if something clearly causes cancer in rats at human-equivalent dosages, it is not automatically an accurate predictor that humans will contract cancer from that chemical.

    The Beef in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2025 at 2:20 pm

    Milhouse, keep believing that. It is what they want you to believe. Bill Gates adores you.

    henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2025 at 5:45 pm

    “Everything causes cancer in lab rats, in sufficiently enormous doses.”
    And Californians — through the roof, Alice!

This is an excellent first step in reforming our food industry. Get the chemical.additives out as much as possible. Other longer term societal reforms will require a change in policy to drop the current farm policies that benefit particular crops and where benefits seem to accrue to the largest competitors. We need to replace the current system of govt support with a focus on small to medium integrated farms producing food for local consumption. IOW the goal should be not just ‘farm to table’ with as few intermediaries as possible but local farms to local table. Unfortunately the Biden admin put in new regs for processing plants that the larger corporate processors wanted and are at least in part designed to be too cost prohibitive for smaller independent local processors to implement.

    stevewhitemd in reply to CommoChief. | January 16, 2025 at 11:39 am

    Local farm to local table has appeal but for any number of foods that just isn’t possible. We don’t grow bananas anywhere near southern Illinois where I shop for bananas. Ideally we get the best of both worlds — local food can get to local markets, and we can enjoy food produced elsewhere in the world.

    Certainly the tilt of the regulatory apparatus to favor conglomerates is something we should fix.

    Yes!! “Regulatory capture” must go.

    Sanddog in reply to CommoChief. | January 16, 2025 at 4:45 pm

    For much of the country, farm to table really limits what would be available to eat. Not really looking forward to corn, beans, squash and no fruit.

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | January 17, 2025 at 2:01 am

    What exactly is the advantage of local crops? Why would crops grown in an area be better for the area’s inhabitants than those grown elsewhere? And conversely, why are they worse for people who live elsewhere?

    It seems to me that the whole idea of “eating local” is just a bunch of ’60s newage woo-woo.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | January 17, 2025 at 3:14 am

      Because it avoids all the preservation tricks (freezing, drying, preservatives) and the extended times required to ship the food far away. The idea is that local food is fresher food. “Brown eggs are local eggs, and local eggs are fresher” (you fellow RI geezers should remember that jingle).

so much winning …not even
official yet … and if the byeden
folks put something in place
it can be canceled but Trump.

LibraryGryffon | January 16, 2025 at 10:49 am

If it’s deemed unsafe for topical use, I find it odd that it’s really safer internally.

And yes, the dose makes the poison but we don’t need things to be that virulently red.

Think about it. If you ask someone the flavor of a drink or candy and they say “red”, you know exactly what it is, right? And those are the ones that almost invariably use this dye.

    “Need” isn’t relevant. When I hear someone ask whether we “need” something, or assert that we don’t “need” it, I know I’m hearing a leftist wanting to ban something.

    We don’t need AR-15s. But they’re useful and people want them, and that’s enough.

      lichau in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2025 at 5:46 pm

      Firearms are, in this country, A Right. “Rights” do not require justification.

        henrybowman in reply to lichau. | January 16, 2025 at 6:00 pm

        And the tenth “right” says that just because a right isn’t in the list doesn’t mean it’s not still a right. There’s no constitutional justification for food and drug regulations, other than the definitively debunked (by Madison in Federalist 41) but perennially abused by Congress “welfare clause.” If people want their food curated for them, they can join a society or read a magazine that performs that service. Given that the fedguv’s health recommendations over the past five years have shown us how badly they can do that job and how much misinformation they can foist on us, often at the point of a gun, it would actually be a superior method to what liberals THINK we have now.

    henrybowman in reply to LibraryGryffon. | January 17, 2025 at 3:15 am

    “If you ask someone the flavor of a drink or candy and they say “red”, you know exactly what it is, right?”

    And blue is usually banana.
    Hey, *I* didn’t make up the rules.

David Brinkley must be laughing in his grave. How on earth can I ever again savor a very dry Rob Roy without the bright red maraschino cherry? The very thought is sufficient to drive one to drink.

The Gentle Grizzly | January 16, 2025 at 11:21 am

Tennessee has a bill coming up to ban red dye 40 from any foods or snacks sold at schools.

I personally watched the effects of artificial food dyes on my step son who has ADHD. He developed a craving for foods containing them. It was difficult to find some kinds of items which did not have them. Halloween was rather difficult.

The combination of ADHD and the government school system was a complete disaster for him, as it has been for many other children. I am quite happy that red dye no. 3 is banned, and look forward to more such bans.

“Making something look more appealing is a benefit to the consumer” sounds like “the ends justify the means”.

    henrybowman in reply to gibbie. | January 16, 2025 at 6:08 pm

    Cigarettes, marijuana, absinthe, hexachlorophene, cyclamates, ivermectin, Laetrile.
    Demon rum!
    Eat your white bread, JFK says we all need 11 servings per day.

Ask perplexity.ai “is the use of food dyes connected with the increase of ADHD diagnosis”.

An older red dye is the extract from the anal glands of a beaver. Should we switch back to that?

Where in the constitution does thAt power exist? askin for a friend

Dolce Far Niente | January 16, 2025 at 1:38 pm

Bear in mind that the FDA doesn’t do its own testing of drugs or food. Instead it reviews the data that industry hands it.

It is only with great reluctance that it will review data from non-industry linked sources, unless, of course that source is ideologically acceptable.

Spent a goodly part of my life in manufacturing automation. One of the fantastic parts was that I got to visit many places that actually made things.
One of my favorites was a big dog food manufacturer. The plant Engineer pointed out that the nutritional content of animal food is much more important than it is for human food. A dog may eat the exact same food every day of its life. Farmers feeding hogs, chickens, cattle are look at the pound of weight gain per pound of food conversion. (Protein content is a big thing).

The animal food had better meet its specifications.

Human food? Has to look good. That is about all that matters. Yes, there is the label. I am a diabetic–I read them. Most others don’t.

My lady friend bought some cookies for me on a recent trip–she doesn’t like hearing my low blood sugar alarm go off in the middle of the night. I looked at the ingredient list. War and Peace. A month later the cookies still looked fresh.

“Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is target of $1 million campaign to prevent him from becoming head of Health and Human Services Dept.”

And I bet his “extended family” contributed at least $450K of it.