Please less risky food colors

When regulators warned a bakery in Leeds, England, to stop using illegal sprinkles in 2021, the owner thought it was a joke. But in fact, the colorful sprinkles that decorated the bakery’s best-selling raspberry-frosted doughnut cookies contained erythrosine, also known as red dye No. 3. The dye is banned in foods in the United Kingdom and European Union, except in cocktail cherries. The bakery reluctantly stopped using the banned sprinkles, but complained that those sold in the UK were too bland.

The bakery had purchased the sprinkles from a wholesaler who imported them from the U.S. The dye, Red No. 3, is allowed in foods sold in the U.S., but it won’t be allowed in California for much longer. The dye was banned in foods there last year, effective January 1, 2027. Several other states are also considering banning the dye.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been reluctant for years to investigate the health risks of Red No. 3 dye in food. The agency banned its use in cosmetics in 1990 when studies showed that the color additive caused cancer in laboratory animals. However, the FDA still allows Red No. 3 dye in food.

Consumer advocacy groups have asked the agency to ban Red No. 3 dye in foods in 2022, citing recent studies that confirm the FDA’s 1990 conclusion. The FDA expects to make a decision on the petition later this year.

From a public health perspective, it makes no sense that the FDA allows Red No. 3 dye in food but not in cosmetics.

So why this inconsistency? The agency allows the colorant in food because manufacturers have been pushing for decades to maintain bright colors in food.

Titanium dioxide, which makes colors particularly bright, was at stake in the original bill in California that banned Red No. 3 dye. But under pressure from the National Confectioners Association, lawmakers removed titanium dioxide from the final bill.

Titanium dioxide was also originally on the list of synthetic food dyes targeted by the California School Food Safety Act, currently before the state legislature. That bill would prohibit California public schools from serving food with any of the six dyes linked to behavioral and developmental disorders in children. But again, titanium dioxide was not on the list. California lawmakers are expected to vote on the bill in late August.

Natural pigments are available as an alternative, but they tend to be less stable and more expensive than synthetic colors. Natural colors are also usually not as bright as synthetic colors. And the brighter colors are known to attract consumers, especially children.

General Mills learned about consumer preferences the hard way in 2016 when it replaced the neon-bright synthetic dyes in Trix cereal with natural dyes. After numerous complaints from consumers, the company brought back a version of the cereal with the original dyes. Now the company offers both versions.

Consumers should have a choice between eating foods with synthetic colours derived from petroleum or natural colours derived from plants, minerals and – in the case of cochineal extract – insects. Regardless of the source, however, regulators should ensure that colour additives do not increase the risk of cancer or hyperactivity in children.

When national authorities like the FDA fail to step in to protect public health, state or regional regulators like the EU step in. These differences in regulation from one country to another, or from one U.S. state to another, cause confusion and headaches for food manufacturers and small business owners. But they could have much worse consequences for parents and their children.

This editorial is the result of collective reflection in C&EN. The lead author of this week’s editorial is Britt Erickson.

The views expressed on this site do not necessarily reflect those of ACS.