Featured
Will the FDA ban red dye No. 3? Northeastern food policy expert weighs in
The FDA is considering a ban on red dye No. 3 in food products, with officials saying an announcement will be made soon.
Red No. 3 is a petroleum-based dye found in a variety of food products including candy, soda and snack foods.
Northeastern Global News talked to food policy expert Darin Detwiler, a Northeastern University professor, about health issues associated with the suspected carcinogen.
He also talked about how state actions such as California’s law to ban red No. 3 are applying pressure to the FDA to make a decision.
The questions and answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.
It’s long overdue and reflects growing pressure to address health concerns associated with artificial dyes.
Consumer advocacy groups, scientists and regulatory bodies worldwide have scrutinized artificial dyes like red dye No. 3 for decades.
By aligning with California’s Food Safety Act and the European Union’s stricter regulations, the U.S. can take a major step toward safer, more transparent food systems.
This is not just about red dye No. 3 — this is about holding food manufacturers accountable, closing regulatory loopholes and ensuring public health comes before profit.
Artificial dyes, including red dye No. 3, have been linked to a range of health concerns including hyperactivity and behavioral issues in children, allergic reactions in sensitive individuals and potential carcinogenic effects in animal studies.
Red dye No. 3, in particular, has been linked to thyroid tumors.
The artificial dyes pose a disproportionate danger to children, who are exposed through colorful processed foods, candies and beverages.
The cumulative effect of such exposure over time remains a serious concern.
The European Union has been ahead of the U.S. in regulating food additives, including artificial dyes.
Many red dyes, such as red dye No. 3, have been restricted or outright banned in the EU.
If the FDA takes action to ban red dyes, it brings the U.S. food safety standards closer to those of the EU. This alignment is particularly important for international trade, consumer trust and industry accountability.
The EU also requires food manufacturers to disclose warnings about artificial dyes, further promoting transparency and informed consumer choice.
In the U.S., a designation known as GRAS for “Generally Recognized As Safe” allows the FDA to approve food additives based on existing scientific evidence.
Essentially, this allows companies to self-certify ingredients as safe, including artificial dyes, without formal FDA approval or review.
This lack of transparency means some substances enter the food supply without independent scientific evaluation or long-term health studies, even when they are later found to be harmful.
In Europe, public demand for “cleaner foods” has been stronger for decades. The EU does not have a GRAS program as in the United States.
European regulations, such as those requiring warning labels on foods containing dyes, forced companies to shift toward natural color alternatives to maintain consumer trust and market share.
Companies like Kellogg’s justify using artificial dyes in foods sold in the U.S. while selling the same products without these dye in Canada and Europe.
Yes, there are safer, natural alternatives to artificial red food dyes.
Some of the best substitutes include beet juice or beet powder; paprika extract; pomegranate juice or powder and carrot juice or powder, for lighter red or orange tones.
Many companies have already begun transitioning to natural food colorings in response to consumer demand and regulatory pressure.
In addition to California, other states are considering action against red dye No. 3.
If multiple states pass laws banning the dye, manufacturers could face a regulatory patchwork requiring state-specific formulations.
This would greatly increase production costs, logistics complexity and compliance challenges.
Historically, companies have chosen to standardize products nationwide rather than navigate different state laws, which may push for a de facto national reformulation even without federal action.