BY NOW, YOU’VE probably seen the news about the FDA revoking authorization for the use of Red Dye No. 3, or erythrosine, in the United States.
There’s an absolute frenzy about this “cancer-causing chemical” on social media, which is a win for anti-food-dye advocates and the advocacy groupp Centre for Science in the Public Interest, which spearheaded a two-year long fight for this ban. Come January 2027 (yes, two years from now), food manufacturers must remove Red Dye No. 3 from all of their products, according to the FDA.
But what even is Red Dye No. 3? Is it dangerous? Like, if you used to gobble up maraschino cherries as a kid, do you now have cancer?
As a dietitian, I assure you that Red No. 3 is far more complex.
What Even Is Red Dye No. 3?
In the U.S., Red Dye No. 3 is a synthetic coloring used in candy, medications, and baked goods. You probably know it best from the hue it gives bright-red decorating icing, Valentine’s Day sweets, and, yes, maraschino cherries.
Why Was Red Dye No. 3 Banned?
Actually, the dye was already banned for use in U.S. cosmetics as of 1990. Back then, the FDA reportedly considered banning the dye in foods too, but chose not to (more on why soon). The basis of both bans is the Delaney Clause, a federal law that was enacted in 1958. This law prohibits any ingredients that have been found to cause cancer in either humans or animals, regardless of dose, to be used in food or cosmetics in the U.S.
Which brings us to the research behind the effects of Red Dye No. 3. (It’s controversial.) Both the cosmetic and food bans of Red Dye No. 3 are the result of a single study published in 1987. In the study, male rats fed a diet where the dye made up four percent of the diet had higher rates of thyroid cancer than female rats, or rats whose diet had no dye in their food. (Mice in the group that received the dye also weighed significantly less before the beginning of the experiment than those in the control group.)
Now what’s interesting is that the mechanism that caused the cancer in the experimental rats does not even exist in humans, which may be why human studies involving Red Dye No. 3 have failed to produce similar results. This is the reason why the FDA did not move to ban the dye in food thirty years ago.
Also know that there are other claims being made about Red Dye No., such as its supposed effect of causing hyperactivity in children. There is no conclusive evidence that supports this assertion. (I read this stuff for a living.)
Yes, it’s true that California banned Red Dye No. 3 in foods in 2023, and that they dye has already been unauthorized for use in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. In Canada, however, Health Canada has determined that “dietary exposure to … Red No. 3 does not pose a health risk to the general Canadian population at the levels set out in the List of Permitted Food Colours.”
Is Red Dye No. 3 Dangerous?
The safety of Red Dye No. 3 is not something that the average person needs to be concerned with, unless their diet is comprised mainly of maraschino cherries, red decorating icing, and Valentine’s Day heart candy. The majority of people consume a very small amount of Red Dye No. 3 overall. (And nothing close to the four percent of their overall diet like the rats did in that 1987 study.)
Sure, we as a society can live without Red Dye No. 3. But we also need to be aware that advocacy groups often overstate the health risks of additives and substances such as food dyes. Many of these entities, including the Environmental Working Group, create their own “safe intake levels” of different ingredients that are far below the levels that have been scientifically proven to be safe.
Toby Amidor, MS, RD, CDN award-winning nutrition expert and Wall Street Journal best-selling author of Health Shots, agrees.
“Although the FDA has agreed to ban Red Dye No. 3 due to the Delaney Clause, research hasn’t linked it to cancer in humans,” Amidor says. “It appears that consumer advocacy groups are using the clause to demonize food unnecessarily. These groups don’t seem to consider the full body of scientific evidence in these cases.”
The danger of unwarranted hysteria about “chemicals” is that it creates anxiety and fear around foods that are safe to eat. It’s important to consider the source of the information you receive online and in traditional media.
What Should You Do About Red Dye No. 3 Now?
Um, avoid the hysteria?
As a dietitian, I’m seeing a trend of demonizing single ingredients and linking them— without adequate science—to poor health outcomes or chronic diseases like cancer. This is an oversimplification of a complex situation.
It’s important to understand that one food ingredient is not unlikely to cause cancer or other health issues on its own. The totality of your diet, as well as lifestyle, and genetics, are also contributing factors in many cases.
It’s far-fetched to claim that a red dye that most of us eat in tiny amounts only occasionally is carcinogenic, especially when the only “proof” of a linkage between the two is a small, thirty-year old study in rats who were fed more than any of us would ever consume as humans.
If you’re worried about additives in food, or even if you’re not, the best way to eat is to include as many whole and minimally processed foods in your diet as you can.
So there’s no need to toss any food in your kitchen that contains Red Dye No. 3 right this moment.
And maybe you should brace yourself, too. Although used for the same purpose as Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40 is also under scrutiny by advocacy organizations for its prevalence in our food supply and its alleged health effects.
