October 27, 2023 – California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel admits. The issue was not on his radar when a coalition of advocates approached him to talk about the need to remove dangerous additives from the food supply.
Gabriel, a Democrat from the San Fernando Valley, also admits that he hasn’t always been the healthiest eater, but now, as the father of three young sons, “you start to think about these things.” You want to do right by your children.
“I admit that at first I was a little skeptical,” he said. Looking at the data, he was amazed. “It seems crazy to me that these chemicals have been banned not only in the 27 countries of the European Union but also in dozens of countries around the world, based on solid scientific evidence they are linked to health risks important. »
As he presented the science to other Assembly members, he gained bipartisan support for the bill he and his colleagues introduced. On October 7, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the California Food Safety Act, making California the first state to ban the manufacture, sale or distribution of any food product containing Red Coloring No. 3 as well as three other chemicals: potassium bromate. , brominated vegetable oil and propyl paraben.
It comes into force in 2027.
California, New York, FDA?
Today, New York proposed similar legislation, Senate Bill S6055A And Assembly Bill A6424, currently in its infancy. Supporters of phasing out Red Dye No. 3 and other harmful additives hope these state developments will prompt the FDA to finally take similar action and respond to a petition calling for a ban on Red Dye No. 3.
It’s been just over a year since the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Environmental Working Group and 22 other organizations filed this request. petition with the FDA, asking the agency to ban red dye No. 3 in foods and supplements.
“We anticipate that this new law (in California) will have national impacts,” said Thomas Galligan, PhD, senior scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit advocacy group that seeks to make food healthier. “It certainly increases pressure on the FDA to respond (to the 2022 petition).”
The FDA acknowledged receipt of the petition, which the agency filed on Nov. 15, Galligan said, but he said it missed the 180-day deadline — May 14, 2023 — to respond.
The FDA did not respond to requests for comment on when the agency would act on the petition or why it took so long.
At the same time, some companies have taken the initiative to remove red dye No. 3 from their products even before the legal deadline or to set a deadline for its withdrawal. The maker of Peeps, the Easter favorite marshmallow treat, said it would no longer use the dye after Easter 2024. But an industry group is opposing the new law, saying it would create confusion and said it would be best to wait for the FDA’s decision. .
Timeline of Concerns
Concerns about the health effects of red dye No. 3 date back to the 1990s, when research found that it caused thyroid cancer in rats and the FDA agreed that the evidence was strong enough to ” firmly establish » the link between the dye and thyroid cancer. in rats.
That finding alone compels the FDA to act, said Galligan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, citing the so-called Clause Delaney. Incorporated into the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by the Food Additive Amendment of 1958, the clause requires the FDA to prohibit any food additive that may cause or induce cancer in animals or in humans.
“The FDA recognized in 1990 that red dye No. 3 caused cancer in animals,” Galligan said. “Based on our assessment of the evidence, there have been no other studies since the 1990 study to refute the FDA’s earlier conclusion.”
The FDA has banned red dye No. 3 in cosmetics and medications for external use, but not in foods and supplements. Since the 1990 investigations, much other research has linked this additive to health problems:
- A 2021 report by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Risk Assessment, found that consumption of synthetic food dyes may lead to hyperactivity and other neurobehavioral problems in some children. The percentage of American children and adolescents diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has increased from approximately 6.1% to 10.2% over the past two decades. The report was released after a two-year comprehensive evaluation of seven FDA-approved synthetic food colors, including Red Color No. 3. The results were also released. published in the magazine Environmental health.
- In a 2012 goodbye Following research into all approved dyes in the United States, researchers concluded that “all currently used dyes should be removed from the food supply and replaced, where appropriate, with safer dyes.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics has published a policy statement in 2018 on food additives and children’s health, concluding that substantial improvements to the food additive regulatory system are urgently needed. Among other actions, it calls for strengthening or replacing the FDA GRAS (“generally recognized as safe”), which allows a “generally recognized as safe” product to avoid the FDA’s premarket review and approval process.
Where is red dye #3 found?
The Environmental Working Group maintains a database, Food scores, which classifies products based on their nutrition, food additives and processing. Staff at the Center for Science in the Public Interest searched the EWG database and found 3,183 branded foods containing red dye No. 3. Also known as erythrosine, it is made from petroleum.
A partial list and scores, 10 being the worst:
It’s also found in fruit packets, bubble gum, some cake mixes and other foods, according to EWG. These brightly colored foods are often marketed to children, said Tasha Stoiber, PhD, a senior scientist at EWG. “These are party foods, and it’s mainly children who eat them. The amount, even in a serving of food, can affect the most sensitive children. Not all children are affected in the same way; some are particularly sensitive.
Substitute for red coloring no. 3: beet powder
“Like any color additive, red coloring No. 3 is not a crucial ingredient,” Galligan said. “It’s just there to make the food visually appealing.” He and others cite the European Union, where red dye No. 3 and other additives are widely banned in foods. “The food industry has already solved this problem in the European market,” Galligan said, so U.S. food suppliers could certainly do the same.
A common alternative to red dye No. 3, according to EWG, is beet powder, which can cost even less than the dye.
Business Efforts
Dunkin’ Donuts was a favorite, which announcement in 2018, it removed all artificial colors from its products.
In a statement, Just Born spokesperson Keith Domalewski said none of its Peeps candies will contain red dye No. 3 after Easter 2024. Another of its products, Hot Tamales, no longer contain red dye No. 3 and an improved ingredient. the list should appear on shelves soon.
When asked if the company planned to make a product without Red No. 3 dye for California and leave it in other products for other states, another spokesperson was unsure. .
But experts at the Environmental Working Group and the Center for Science in the Public Interest said they doubt any company would do it — both because of the costs and because replacing red dye with other products Color enhancing products, such as beet powders, are relatively easy. TO DO. “There are alternatives (to dyes) and it makes sense to get rid of the ones that we know cause cancer,” said Stoiber of the Environmental Working Group.
Brach’s Candy Corn, made by Ferrara USA, also has a score of 10 due to its red dye No. 3 content. A spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about the removal of red dye No. 3 from his products.
Make an exception
Not everyone applauds the state’s efforts. In a statement released after the California bill was signed, the National Confectioners Association said, “Governor Newsom’s approval of this bill will undermine consumer confidence and create confusion around food safety.” This law replaces a uniform national food safety system with a patchwork of inconsistent state requirements created by legislative fiat that will increase food costs.
He continued: “This is a slippery slope that the FDA could avoid by engaging on this important topic. We should rely on the scientific rigor of the FDA to evaluate the safety of food ingredients and additives.
In a opinion article Published before California’s bill was signed into law, Frank Yiannas, former deputy commissioner for food policy and response at the FDA, called the bill “well-intentioned,” but if it passed, it would “set a dangerous precedent for how food safety standards in our nation are best established.” State-by-state decisions, he wrote, would result in different regulatory standards “that would weaken our nation’s food system and food security efforts.”
While he understands that many believe the FDA is not moving fast enough with its decision, “that doesn’t mean we should circumvent their authority.”
And after?
Gabriel, of California, said he has received requests from lawmakers in other states interested in proposing similar legislation. He had two goals in passing the law, he said. “The priority was to protect children and families. The second was to send a message to Washington, D.C., about the need for real reforms to the FDA’s food safety process.
