Red 3 banned, but the food dye deception continues: How rebranded toxins still lurk in your pantry

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally banned Red 3, a synthetic food dye linked to cancer in lab rats, from the nation’s food supply in January 2025. While this move marks a significant step toward protecting public health, it also raises critical questions about the broader use of artificial food dyes and the deceptive rebranding tactics employed by the food industry.

For decades, Red 3 — also known as erythrosine — has been a staple in candies, baked goods, cough syrups and even maraschino cherries. Its vibrant red hue made it a favorite among manufacturers, but its safety has long been in question. The FDA itself banned Red 3 from cosmetics and topical drugs in 1990 after studies showed it caused cancer in rats. Yet, inexplicably, it remained legal in foods and oral medications for over 30 more years.

This regulatory failure highlights a troubling pattern: the FDA’s reluctance to act swiftly on harmful additives, even when evidence of their dangers is clear. As health advocates celebrate the ban, they also warn that Red 3 is just the tip of the iceberg. Many other synthetic dyes, now rebranded with natural-sounding names, continue to infiltrate our food supply, posing risks to our health — especially for children.

The long road to banning Red 3

The ban on Red 3 was long overdue. In 1990, the FDA prohibited its use in cosmetics and topical drugs under the Delaney Clause, a federal statute requiring the agency to ban any additive found to cause cancer in humans or animals. However, the FDA failed to extend this ban to foods and oral medications, despite mounting evidence of its carcinogenic effects.

It wasn’t until 2022, when the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and 23 other organizations petitioned the FDA, that the agency finally took action. “This is a welcome, but long overdue, action from the FDA: removing the unsustainable double standard in which Red 3 was banned from lipstick but permitted in candy,” said Dr. Peter Lurie, director of CSPI.

The ban gives manufacturers until January 2027 to remove Red 3 from their products, with ingested drugs like cough syrups given until January 2028. While this is a victory for public health, it also underscores the FDA’s sluggish response to emerging threats.

The rebranding game: Synthetic dyes in disguise

While Red 3 has been banned, other synthetic dyes remain widely used in the U.S. food supply. These petroleum-based chemicals, including Blue 1, Yellow 5 and Red 40, have been linked to behavioral problems in children, such as hyperactivity and impulsivity, particularly in those with ADHD.

To counter growing consumer skepticism, the food industry has resorted to rebranding these dyes with names that sound natural and wholesome. For example:

• Curcumin (E100): Derived from turmeric, but often synthetically produced.
• Caramel Color (E150): Made by heating sugar, but can contain harmful byproducts.
• Beta-Carotene (E160a): A natural pigment, but frequently synthesized for industrial use.
• Annatto (E160b): Derived from seeds, but often processed with synthetic chemicals.

“These food dyes are being given names that make you falsely believe that there’s something natural about them,” warns Robyn Openshaw, a natural health advocate. “Curcumin, Caramel, Beta-Carotene and Annatto—these words give the impression that they are natural, or at least food, rather than synthetic dyes and toxic.”

This rebranding is a calculated move to deceive consumers. By masking synthetic dyes behind natural-sounding names, manufacturers can continue to use these harmful additives without raising red flags.

The health risks of synthetic dyes

The dangers of synthetic food dyes extend beyond cancer. Research has linked these additives to a range of health issues, particularly in children. Studies have shown that artificial dyes can exacerbate ADHD symptoms, contribute to behavioral problems, and even disrupt normal brain function.

“Artificial colors are not the main cause of ADHD, but they may contribute significantly to some cases,” said Dr. L. Eugene Arnold, an emeritus psychiatry professor at Ohio State University.

Despite these risks, the FDA has been slow to act. While the agency acknowledges that some children may be sensitive to synthetic dyes, it maintains that most children suffer no adverse effects. This stance has drawn criticism from health advocates, who argue that the FDA’s inaction puts vulnerable populations at risk.

What you can do to protect your family

The ban on Red 3 is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. To truly safeguard your health, it’s essential to avoid all synthetic food dyes. Here’s how:

1. Read labels carefully: Look for dyes like Yellow 5, Red 40 and Blue 1, as well as their rebranded names (e.g., Curcumin, Caramel Color).
2. Choose whole foods: Opt for colorful fruits, vegetables and other whole foods that are naturally free of synthetic dyes.
3. Advocate for change: Support legislation aimed at banning harmful additives and demand greater transparency from food manufacturers.

As health advocate Robyn Openshaw puts it, “The food industry keeps getting more clever, but simple foods we make are naturally free of dyes—and delicious, too!”

A call for greater accountability

The ban on Red 3 is a victory, but it also serves as a stark reminder of the FDA’s shortcomings. For decades, the agency failed to protect consumers from a known carcinogen, allowing it to remain in foods and medications long after its dangers were established.

“All Americans deserve foods free from harmful food additives,” said Thomas Galligan, CSPI’s Principal Scientist for Additives and Supplements. “Removing Red 3 and other unsafe, unnecessary food chemicals from our food supply is a critical step for protecting consumers.”

As we celebrate this milestone, let’s also push for broader reforms. The FDA must prioritize public health over industry interests, ensuring that harmful additives are swiftly removed from our food supply. Until then, it’s up to us to stay informed, read labels and make choices that protect our health and the health of our children.

The fight for health freedom continues — and it starts with what’s on our plates.

Sources include:

SHTFPlan.com

ReviewJournal.com

GreenSmoothieGirl.com

ABCNews.com

CSPINet.org