By Phil Galewitz, KFF Well being Information
When the FDA introduced in January, earlier than President Joe Biden’s time period ended, that it might ban a dye referred to as purple dye No. 3 in meals and ingested medicine, the federal company cited only one 1987 examine on rats to assist its motion.
The industry-funded examine, based mostly on information from two prior research, was led by a Virginia toxicologist who stated then — and nonetheless believes in the present day, a long time after issues first arose that the chemical could possibly be carcinogenic — that his analysis discovered the petroleum-derived meals coloring doesn’t trigger most cancers in people.
“If I thought there was a problem, I would have stated it in the paper,” Joseph Borzelleca, 94, a professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at Virginia Commonwealth College, instructed KFF Well being Information after the FDA’s announcement. “I have no problem with my family — my kids and grandkids — consuming Red 3. I stand by the conclusions in my paper that this is not a problem for humans.”
Quickly after Borzelleca’s paper was revealed in a scientific journal, Meals and Chemical Toxicology, the FDA examined the information his crew had collected and reached its personal conclusion: that the dye brought on most cancers in male lab rats. In 1990, the FDA cited the examine in banning Crimson 3 in cosmetics.
In 1992, the FDA stated it wished to revoke approval of Crimson 3 in meals and medicines. However the company didn’t act on the time, citing an absence of assets.
Greater than 30 years later, after a renewed push by shopper advocates, the Biden administration introduced the ban in its final days in energy. The transfer got here simply weeks earlier than the Senate confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee to go the Division of Well being and Human Companies, which oversees the FDA.
Kennedy has been a vocal critic of meals components, together with Crimson 3. On March 10 he met with prime meals {industry} executives and instructed them in the event that they don’t eradicate synthetic meals dyes from their merchandise, the federal authorities will drive them to take action, Meals Repair reported.
Client advocacy teams cheered the Crimson 3 ban, even because the FDA stated there isn’t a proof that the dye is harmful to individuals. “Importantly, the way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans,” Jim Jones, FDA deputy commissioner for human meals, stated in an announcement.
Jones resigned from FDA in February, criticizing Trump administration cuts that he stated hobbled his workplace.
The FDA didn’t reply to a request for remark, however Marty Makary, Trump’s nominee to steer the company, stated at his Senate affirmation listening to on March 6 that he’s involved about whether or not meals components corresponding to Crimson 3 hurt youngsters.
“It did not make sense that red dye No. 3 was banned in cosmetics but allowed in the food supply,” Makary instructed Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who questioned why the FDA ban doesn’t take impact till 2027.
“We want to kill people for two more years?” the Alabama Republican stated. “I would hope that you would, if you’re confirmed, you’d go in and look at it very quickly and say, ‘Why do we want to put our people in harm’s way?’”
The Worldwide Affiliation of Coloration Producers says Crimson 3 is secure within the tiny ranges usually consumed by people. The dye was accepted to be used in meals within the U.S. in 1907, and in the present day it’s an ingredient in 1000’s of merchandise together with cereals, sweet, drinks, and cake toppings.
Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for meals components and dietary supplements on the Heart for Science within the Public Curiosity, which petitioned the FDA for a ban, stated {that a} federal regulation referred to as the Delaney Clause prohibits any ingredient that causes most cancers in animals from being included in meals. (The writer of KFF Well being Information, David Rousseau, is on the CSPI board.)
“At the end of the day, this is an unnecessary additive,” he stated. “It’s a marketing tool for the industry to make foods look more appealing so consumers will buy them. But federal law is clear: No amount of cancer risk is acceptable in foods.”
Galligan stated he was not shocked Borzelleca’s opinion on Crimson 3 had not modified or that the meals dye {industry} has performed down the chance.
In October 2023, California turned the primary state to ban Crimson 3 in meals beginning in 2027, superseding the FDA’s earlier rule permitting small quantities in meals as a shade additive. The state legislature acted after a state evaluation concluded the dye may trigger hyperactivity in youngsters.
The European Union, Australia, and Japan are among the many areas that already ban the chemical in meals. The EU’s ban additionally cites hyperactivity in youngsters. The EU requires meals makers to incorporate a warning that meals dyes which might be nonetheless allowed could “have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”
The IACM factors to analysis by scientific committees operated by the World Well being Group, together with a 2018 evaluation that affirmed the security of Crimson 3 in meals.
Some meals producers have already reformulated merchandise to take away Crimson 3. As a replacement they use beet juice; carmine, a dye produced from bugs; or pigments from meals corresponding to purple candy potato, radish, and purple cabbage.
It isn’t clear how the FDA decided that Crimson 3 could cause most cancers in male rats. Borzelleca’s paper stated some rats that had been fed Crimson 3 developed polyps of their thyroid gland however doesn’t point out most cancers.
Borzelleca, whose examine was funded by the IACM, then referred to as the Licensed Coloration Producers Affiliation, stated he was shocked the FDA banned the dye and used his analysis to again the transfer.
“I am surprised all this time has gone by and it’s been safe for human use, and now it’s being pulled from the market due to concerns not supported by the data,” Borzelleca stated. “Our study did not find this was a carcinogen.”
His examine was a response to the FDA’s requirement within the Eighties for added long-term feeding research in rats and mice as a situation for the continued provisional approval of a number of shade components, together with Crimson 3.
Over a long time, Borzelleca revealed dozens of analysis papers on the toxicology of meals components, pesticides, and water contaminants. He additionally served on advisory boards for the tobacco {industry} and represented cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds in negotiations with the Division of Well being and Human Companies about cigarette components, in response to a 1984 company memo. Borzelleca is a former president of the Society of Toxicology and consulted for the Nationwide Academy of Sciences and the World Well being Group.
The commonwealth of Virginia gave him a lifetime achievement award in 2001 for his work serving to assess risks in meals, medicine, and pesticides.
Phil Galewitz: pgalewitz@kff.org, @philgalewitz
Initially Printed:
