The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking steps to ban Red No. 3, a synthetic food coloring also known as Erythrosine, which is derived from petroleum. This artificial dye is commonly used to give food and ingested drugs a "bright cherry-red color," the FDA noted in an online statement.
Jim Jones, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, informed a U.S. Senate health committee that the agency is actively reviewing a petition to revoke Red No. 3’s authorization. "We’re hopeful that in the next few weeks we’ll be acting on that petition," he said.
The petition references the Delaney Clause, which prohibits the FDA from classifying a color additive as safe if it has been shown to cause cancer in humans or animals, according to the FDA’s statement.
Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor at NYU Langone Health and Fox News medical analyst, discussed the FDA’s proposed ban on "Fox and Friends," referring to Red No. 3 as "scary stuff." He highlighted that the dye has been banned in skin products since the 1990s and questioned why it remains permitted in food. "Something you can’t put on your face — yet a kid can eat it," Siegel remarked.
Red No. 3 has already been banned in the European Union, the U.K., and many countries across Asia and Australia. Siegel welcomed the FDA’s potential ban but questioned the delay. "Why are we so late, and why now?" he asked, attributing the momentum to President-elect Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and increased public pressure on the FDA.
The FDA’s decision may be influenced by growing concerns over the health risks associated with synthetic dyes. Research has linked Red No. 3 to cancer in animal studies and behavioral issues in children. "They’ve studied it in high doses with cancer, but also for ADHD," Siegel said, referencing findings from 26 studies.
Siegel criticized the U.S. for allowing nine synthetic dyes in food, saying, "It’s a disgrace." He added that while the FDA has previously claimed it cannot definitively prove these dyes cause such conditions, the potential risks warrant action.
The move to eliminate Red No. 3 is seen as a response to mounting petitions from consumers and advocacy groups, as well as legislative pressure. Siegel concluded, "They know it’s going to happen one way or the other. So they want to do it now."
