9 ms·

From the CNN article: > There don’t appear to be any studies establishing links between red dye No. 3 and cancer in humans, and “relevant exposure levels to FD

From the CNN article: > There don’t appear to be any studies establishing links between red dye No. 3 and cancer in humans, and “relevant exposure levels to FD&C Red No. 3 for humans are typically much lower than those that cause the effects shown in male rats,” the FDA said in its constituent update posted Wednesday. “Claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information.” > But “it doesn’t matter, because the FDA mandate under the Delaney Clause says that if it shows cancer in animals or humans, they’re supposed to keep it from the food supply,” said Dr. Jennifer Pomeranz, associate professor of public health policy and management at New York University’s School of Global Public Health. Even more confusing - the FDA still doesn't believe there's a cancer link with humans. But they are banning it anyway on a technicality.

modeless 2y ago
They are banning it now so that the incoming administration can't claim credit for banning it in a few months.
- lowercased 2y ago
  But... they will anyway, if public sentiment favors it. If not, they'll blame the predecessor. This seems predestined to be.
- blindriver 2y ago
  They never would have banned it if RFK Jr. wasn't the HHS nominee.
  - redserk 2y ago
    Incorrect. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00830.pdf https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00830.pdf Scroll down to "I. Introduction". > In the Federal Register of February 17, 2023 (88 FR 10245), we announced that we filed a color additive petition (CAP 3C0323) jointly submitted by RFK was not the HHS nominee in February 2023. But it appears this process has been going even earlier than that: November 15, 2022 [0] [0]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/17/2023-03391/filing-of-color-additive-petition-from-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest-et-al-request-to https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/17/2023-03...
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Where did you read that?
- rcpt 2y ago
  These regulations fit pretty well with the Democrats platform but until now they would have been near impossible to pass.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Historically I would agree, but we are in a new world. RFK Jr is the face of increased FDA regulation and banning of potentially toxic materials, and he is coming under the Trump administration. For the vast majority of his life, he was a Democrat Fighting frequently Republican administrations purposes of environment and health, but he is now very much rejected by The Democratic party. The Republican party seems to be welcoming him fairly warmly, although it will be interesting to see how long that persists as soon as he has some disagreement with Trump or starts making a real impact. Personally I really hope many Democrats can put The health of our people ahead of other things and work together to make meaningful changes, because something really needs to be done. Chronic health issues have exploded and it may already be too late for multiple generations who will suffer from chronic disease their entire life as a result of this. If those of us alive and aware of these problems now don't do something to correct this course, we will be guilty of criminal negligence to our descendants in my opinion.
    - rcpt 2y ago
      Increased food regulation is only one part of his platform. And it's something that Democrats have wanted for a long time. He has a ton of other stuff much more aligned with the right
- myvoiceismypass 2y ago
  From AP, seems like this has been in the works for over 2 years: > Food and Drug Administration officials granted a 2022 petition filed by two dozen food safety and health advocates, who urged the agency to revoke authorization for the substance that gives some candies, snack cakes and maraschino cherries a bright red hue.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > They are banning it now so that the incoming administration can't claim credit for banning it in a few months. The incoming administration won't be banning things from our food. It will be removing regulations and allowing corporations to put whatever they want into their products no matter what the harms are. I wouldn't be surprised if the incoming administration actually reverses the Red Dye No. 3 ban outright or just guts/weakens the FDA to the point where they can't do anything about it. We're talking about an administration that previously pulled USDA inspectors out of slaughterhouses and allowed the corporations to police themselves. It killed a rule that forced poultry processors to dispose of chickens with lesions potentially caused by a cancer-causing virus and allowed them to just cut off the tumors (assuming they catch them, they also allowed chicken and pork processors to speed up their production lines, reducing the time workers have to spot problems). It reversed bans on harmful pesticides. It cut back regulations on foods that claim to be "organic". It waived nutrition/calorie label requirements for restaurants, and it allowed food companies to make substitutions and omissions in their products without updating ingredient labels. I expect we'll be hearing about a lot of listeria salmonella and E. Coli illnesses/deaths in the near future, and much later on we'll be here commenting on articles talking about how deregulation of the food industry and regulatory capture by the food industry have resulted in a lot of preventable deaths from cancers and illnesses.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >The incoming administration won't be banning things from our food. It will be removing regulations and allowing corporations to put whatever they want into their products no matter what the harms are. But RFK was also complaining about all the additives added to foods in the US, and wanted to get rid of everything from ultra processed foods to seed oils?
    - autoexec 2y ago
      It will be interesting to see the conflict between the industry lobbyists stuffing trump's pockets with cash and RFK Jr. who is extremely opinionated. My guess is that either RFK Jr. folds and makes compromises whenever trump asks him to in order to stay in his position or he gets thrown out on his ass for standing up for what he believes. I really don't know how firmly RFK Jr will hold to his convictions, but I do know that Trump has no problems getting rid of anyone who refuses to be blindly loyal to him.
tbrownaw 2y ago
Would it be better for them to just ignore the rules if they don't feel that the rules make sense?
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
How about the idea that it serves absolutely zero purpose, and could cause cancer? Maybe that is reason enough to remove it from food? “Some people here” love Europe so much, they banned it for that reason. But, during this election, conservatives pushed for the same so now it’s strange how “some people here” are “pro food dyes”.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  "conservatives pushed for the same" RFK Jr is basically the polar opposite of a conservative, even though he hitched his wagon to Trump after Harris refused to return his calls. Seeing the Trump base adopt RFK's positions is...super weird. Trump is extremely pro Corporation and anti-regulation. RFK is anti-corporation and super pro regulation, and believes that fast food should be banned and the government should provide every American with three organic meals a day, which isn't really a Republican platform. And there's a good chance RFK Jr has served his purpose to the MAGA group and he'll start facing opposition that leads to his elimination from the administration. Indeed, it's normal on HN to see endless attacks on California (which had already banned both red dye #3 and 40, among others, to the extent that they can as a state) for banning potential carcinogens, making this a rather hilarious turn of events. And FWIW, the FDA started the process for this months ago, and months earlier received a petition (from a Democrat, if it matters) to ban the dye.
  - rcpt 2y ago
    Right. Michelle Obama pushed for a lot of things that RFK wants. Now that the Republicans suddenly want what the Democrats have always wanted of course they're going to pass those laws
  - legitster 2y ago
    > Trump is extremely pro Corporation and anti-regulation Trump is actually very, very anti-corporation. It's a very prominent part of his stump speeches and campaigning. He's accusing corporations of everything. His fortune was made from real-estate speculation and the Trump corporation is basically run like a family business. If you were try to attach a label - he is pro-aristocracy. He believes wealth tied to land and inheritance is "legitimate", and wealth tried to trade and commerce as illegitimate.
tw04 2y ago
Serious question: If there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing color, why risk it? What is the benefit?
- selykg 2y ago
  I don't think anyone really cares or thinks there's some benefit. The problem is (I think) that this leads to some people believing that the dye causes cancer, when there's been no direct link in humans.
- dmonitor 2y ago
  I'm surprised they're banning Red 3 instead of Red 40. Red 40 is a very common allergen.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    Yes one member of my family would be thrilled if Red 40 was banned. They don't have an anaphylactic reaction, they "just" barf it back up shortly.
- will4274 2y ago
  We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. At the end of the day, the safest thing (in terms of avoiding cancer) is probably to plant some potatoes in your backyard and eat them unspiced and unbuttered for the rest of your life. Most of us prefer food that is a bit more appealing than that, however. Appealing in all aspects - taste, texture, and appearance.
  - tw04 2y ago
    >We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. I mean, we absolutely do that already. There's plenty of folks on a low sodium diet because while the salt tastes great, it's bad for them. In this case we aren't talking about eliminating the color red entirely, we're arguing about a slightly different color. You can get red from a strawberry, raspberry, cherry skin, etc. which will work just as well. It just won't be the neon-red that red-5 produces.
bityard 2y ago
It's the old "better safe than sorry" routine. Very popular with politicians and managers, who are incentivized to take action on extremely minor issues and hold them up as heroic accomplishments while avoiding all the work and mess involved with fixing _actual_ systemic and cultural problems.
robotnikman 2y ago
If a food additive is banned in the EU, it should be banned here IMO. The EU has a good track record on what should or should not be included in food
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Strictly speaking it isn't banned in the EU, it is banned in the EU _with the exception of processed cherries_. Quite why the cocktail cherry industry was considered so critical that it received a specific exception is unclear.
  - kranke155 2y ago
    cherry lobby
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    I think it would mean at the time of the ban, the alternative red dyes that were available didn't work well with processed cherries.
- parineum 2y ago
  By what measurement is their track record good?
  - kranke155 2y ago
    look at the health of average person in EU vs US particularly related to food related disorders. Include obesity, diabetes. Then move onto the GMOs and Roundup and how GMOs enabled mass use of Roundup. Roundup is now being looked into as a potential source of the increase in autism, dementia and other neurorelated conditions. Keep digging.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Roundup (glyphosate) is in wide use in Europe.
dialup_sounds 2y ago
It's not a technicality, it's the law.
m3kw9 2y ago
Banning all chemical that does exactly nothing except to absorb spectrum of light and make fake food look more like the real analog
culi 2y ago
The FDA does believe there's strong evidence for its carcinogenicity. Literally the very first paragraph points that out and links to the 2012 publication https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/ It's been banned from cosmetics since the 1990s and its restricted in food in European Union, China, and the United Kingdom and limited in Australia, and New Zealand. California was also banning it starting in 2027. The FDA is behind on this
- refurb 2y ago
  You’re linking to a publication that has nothing to do with the FDA.
interludead 2y ago
Why some harmful substances are banned swiftly while others linger and whether this is about public health or legal optics.
janeway 2y ago
Doesn’t that make perfect sense? First test in animals. If carcinogenic in animals then don’t move to humans. A lack of studies in human is hardly a basis for ruling it safe. That was a sensible simplified version of the logic during my training for regulation in drugs and medical devices, at least.
jcrben 2y ago
I think the primary reason it was banned in California last year was all the studies correlating it to deleterious cognitive impacts on children https://www.additudemag.com/red-dye-3-ban-adhd-news/amp/ https://www.additudemag.com/red-dye-3-ban-adhd-news/amp/ https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/potential-impacts-red-dye-no-3-has-on-children https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/potential-impact...

modeless 2y ago

They are banning it now so that the incoming administration can't claim credit for banning it in a few months.

lowercased 2y ago
But... they will anyway, if public sentiment favors it. If not, they'll blame the predecessor. This seems predestined to be.
blindriver 2y ago
They never would have banned it if RFK Jr. wasn't the HHS nominee.
- redserk 2y ago
  Incorrect. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00830.pdf https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00830.pdf Scroll down to "I. Introduction". > In the Federal Register of February 17, 2023 (88 FR 10245), we announced that we filed a color additive petition (CAP 3C0323) jointly submitted by RFK was not the HHS nominee in February 2023. But it appears this process has been going even earlier than that: November 15, 2022 [0] [0]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/17/2023-03391/filing-of-color-additive-petition-from-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest-et-al-request-to https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/17/2023-03...
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Where did you read that?
rcpt 2y ago
These regulations fit pretty well with the Democrats platform but until now they would have been near impossible to pass.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Historically I would agree, but we are in a new world. RFK Jr is the face of increased FDA regulation and banning of potentially toxic materials, and he is coming under the Trump administration. For the vast majority of his life, he was a Democrat Fighting frequently Republican administrations purposes of environment and health, but he is now very much rejected by The Democratic party. The Republican party seems to be welcoming him fairly warmly, although it will be interesting to see how long that persists as soon as he has some disagreement with Trump or starts making a real impact. Personally I really hope many Democrats can put The health of our people ahead of other things and work together to make meaningful changes, because something really needs to be done. Chronic health issues have exploded and it may already be too late for multiple generations who will suffer from chronic disease their entire life as a result of this. If those of us alive and aware of these problems now don't do something to correct this course, we will be guilty of criminal negligence to our descendants in my opinion.
  - rcpt 2y ago
    Increased food regulation is only one part of his platform. And it's something that Democrats have wanted for a long time. He has a ton of other stuff much more aligned with the right
myvoiceismypass 2y ago
From AP, seems like this has been in the works for over 2 years: > Food and Drug Administration officials granted a 2022 petition filed by two dozen food safety and health advocates, who urged the agency to revoke authorization for the substance that gives some candies, snack cakes and maraschino cherries a bright red hue.
autoexec 2y ago
> They are banning it now so that the incoming administration can't claim credit for banning it in a few months. The incoming administration won't be banning things from our food. It will be removing regulations and allowing corporations to put whatever they want into their products no matter what the harms are. I wouldn't be surprised if the incoming administration actually reverses the Red Dye No. 3 ban outright or just guts/weakens the FDA to the point where they can't do anything about it. We're talking about an administration that previously pulled USDA inspectors out of slaughterhouses and allowed the corporations to police themselves. It killed a rule that forced poultry processors to dispose of chickens with lesions potentially caused by a cancer-causing virus and allowed them to just cut off the tumors (assuming they catch them, they also allowed chicken and pork processors to speed up their production lines, reducing the time workers have to spot problems). It reversed bans on harmful pesticides. It cut back regulations on foods that claim to be "organic". It waived nutrition/calorie label requirements for restaurants, and it allowed food companies to make substitutions and omissions in their products without updating ingredient labels. I expect we'll be hearing about a lot of listeria salmonella and E. Coli illnesses/deaths in the near future, and much later on we'll be here commenting on articles talking about how deregulation of the food industry and regulatory capture by the food industry have resulted in a lot of preventable deaths from cancers and illnesses.
- gruez 2y ago
  >The incoming administration won't be banning things from our food. It will be removing regulations and allowing corporations to put whatever they want into their products no matter what the harms are. But RFK was also complaining about all the additives added to foods in the US, and wanted to get rid of everything from ultra processed foods to seed oils?
  - autoexec 2y ago
    It will be interesting to see the conflict between the industry lobbyists stuffing trump's pockets with cash and RFK Jr. who is extremely opinionated. My guess is that either RFK Jr. folds and makes compromises whenever trump asks him to in order to stay in his position or he gets thrown out on his ass for standing up for what he believes. I really don't know how firmly RFK Jr will hold to his convictions, but I do know that Trump has no problems getting rid of anyone who refuses to be blindly loyal to him.

tbrownaw 2y ago

Would it be better for them to just ignore the rules if they don't feel that the rules make sense?

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago

How about the idea that it serves absolutely zero purpose, and could cause cancer? Maybe that is reason enough to remove it from food? “Some people here” love Europe so much, they banned it for that reason. But, during this election, conservatives pushed for the same so now it’s strange how “some people here” are “pro food dyes”.

llm_nerd 2y ago
"conservatives pushed for the same" RFK Jr is basically the polar opposite of a conservative, even though he hitched his wagon to Trump after Harris refused to return his calls. Seeing the Trump base adopt RFK's positions is...super weird. Trump is extremely pro Corporation and anti-regulation. RFK is anti-corporation and super pro regulation, and believes that fast food should be banned and the government should provide every American with three organic meals a day, which isn't really a Republican platform. And there's a good chance RFK Jr has served his purpose to the MAGA group and he'll start facing opposition that leads to his elimination from the administration. Indeed, it's normal on HN to see endless attacks on California (which had already banned both red dye #3 and 40, among others, to the extent that they can as a state) for banning potential carcinogens, making this a rather hilarious turn of events. And FWIW, the FDA started the process for this months ago, and months earlier received a petition (from a Democrat, if it matters) to ban the dye.
- rcpt 2y ago
  Right. Michelle Obama pushed for a lot of things that RFK wants. Now that the Republicans suddenly want what the Democrats have always wanted of course they're going to pass those laws
- legitster 2y ago
  > Trump is extremely pro Corporation and anti-regulation Trump is actually very, very anti-corporation. It's a very prominent part of his stump speeches and campaigning. He's accusing corporations of everything. His fortune was made from real-estate speculation and the Trump corporation is basically run like a family business. If you were try to attach a label - he is pro-aristocracy. He believes wealth tied to land and inheritance is "legitimate", and wealth tried to trade and commerce as illegitimate.

tw04 2y ago

Serious question: If there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing color, why risk it? What is the benefit?

selykg 2y ago
I don't think anyone really cares or thinks there's some benefit. The problem is (I think) that this leads to some people believing that the dye causes cancer, when there's been no direct link in humans.
dmonitor 2y ago
I'm surprised they're banning Red 3 instead of Red 40. Red 40 is a very common allergen.
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  Yes one member of my family would be thrilled if Red 40 was banned. They don't have an anaphylactic reaction, they "just" barf it back up shortly.
will4274 2y ago
We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. At the end of the day, the safest thing (in terms of avoiding cancer) is probably to plant some potatoes in your backyard and eat them unspiced and unbuttered for the rest of your life. Most of us prefer food that is a bit more appealing than that, however. Appealing in all aspects - taste, texture, and appearance.
- tw04 2y ago
  >We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. I mean, we absolutely do that already. There's plenty of folks on a low sodium diet because while the salt tastes great, it's bad for them. In this case we aren't talking about eliminating the color red entirely, we're arguing about a slightly different color. You can get red from a strawberry, raspberry, cherry skin, etc. which will work just as well. It just won't be the neon-red that red-5 produces.

bityard 2y ago

It's the old "better safe than sorry" routine. Very popular with politicians and managers, who are incentivized to take action on extremely minor issues and hold them up as heroic accomplishments while avoiding all the work and mess involved with fixing _actual_ systemic and cultural problems.

robotnikman 2y ago

If a food additive is banned in the EU, it should be banned here IMO. The EU has a good track record on what should or should not be included in food

rsynnott 2y ago
Strictly speaking it isn't banned in the EU, it is banned in the EU _with the exception of processed cherries_. Quite why the cocktail cherry industry was considered so critical that it received a specific exception is unclear.
- kranke155 2y ago
  cherry lobby
- Symbiote 2y ago
  I think it would mean at the time of the ban, the alternative red dyes that were available didn't work well with processed cherries.
parineum 2y ago
By what measurement is their track record good?
- kranke155 2y ago
  look at the health of average person in EU vs US particularly related to food related disorders. Include obesity, diabetes. Then move onto the GMOs and Roundup and how GMOs enabled mass use of Roundup. Roundup is now being looked into as a potential source of the increase in autism, dementia and other neurorelated conditions. Keep digging.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Roundup (glyphosate) is in wide use in Europe.

dialup_sounds 2y ago

It's not a technicality, it's the law.

m3kw9 2y ago

Banning all chemical that does exactly nothing except to absorb spectrum of light and make fake food look more like the real analog

culi 2y ago

The FDA does believe there's strong evidence for its carcinogenicity. Literally the very first paragraph points that out and links to the 2012 publication https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/ It's been banned from cosmetics since the 1990s and its restricted in food in European Union, China, and the United Kingdom and limited in Australia, and New Zealand. California was also banning it starting in 2027. The FDA is behind on this

refurb 2y ago
You’re linking to a publication that has nothing to do with the FDA.

interludead 2y ago

Why some harmful substances are banned swiftly while others linger and whether this is about public health or legal optics.

janeway 2y ago

Doesn’t that make perfect sense? First test in animals. If carcinogenic in animals then don’t move to humans. A lack of studies in human is hardly a basis for ruling it safe. That was a sensible simplified version of the logic during my training for regulation in drugs and medical devices, at least.

jcrben 2y ago

I think the primary reason it was banned in California last year was all the studies correlating it to deleterious cognitive impacts on children https://www.additudemag.com/red-dye-3-ban-adhd-news/amp/ https://www.additudemag.com/red-dye-3-ban-adhd-news/amp/ https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/potential-impacts-red-dye-no-3-has-on-children https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/potential-impact...