Families across the country are saying goodbye to foods containing red dye No. 3, but what’s the buzz all about?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) might soon ban red dye No. 3, a common coloring in various snacks and treats like gummies and frostings. This follows the FDA’s review of a petition highlighting potential health concerns related to this petroleum-based dye. California has already taken a bold step in this direction. Last October, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a groundbreaking bill to ban red dye No. 3 along with three other chemicals in foods sold in the state by 2027. Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel clarified that while foods won’t be banned, manufacturers will need to tweak recipes to replace these additives with safer alternatives already used in Europe and other regions.
Matt Parks, a father of three, shared how his family strictly controls the intake of red dye No. 3, especially with their youngest daughter. He noted a marked change in her emotional regulation after consuming products with the dye, describing her as easily agitated and upset. As someone with ADHD, Parks also noticed increased irritability when consuming the dye, suggesting it might act as a trigger for certain symptoms.
Similarly, AJ Yarwood observed his children’s heightened hyperactivity and reduced focus after consuming the dye, which exacerbates existing attention issues in his daughter. He lamented the gap in regulations, pointing out that while the dye is banned in cosmetics, it inexplicably remains in many daily foods.
Carrie Conrad added her voice, recalling chaotic incidents whenever her kids consumed the dye, likening it to a frenzy at birthday parties. These personal accounts mirror ongoing concerns about the dye’s effects on children’s behavior and health beyond mere anecdotes.
Experts have weighed in on the matter. Jamie Alan, a pharmacology and toxicology professor, acknowledged a limited number of studies linking red dye No. 3 to certain behavioral problems but emphasized that these suggest an association rather than causation. The dye offers no nutritional benefits but potential harm, Alan noted, seeing benefits in its removal from foods.
Dr. Daniel Ganjian, a pediatrician, supports banning the dye, noting parental awareness about long ingredient lists that could affect their kids’ health. Although research on the dye is limited, he argues ethics prevent more robust data since it involves exposing children to possibly harmful substances.
Both experts recommend avoiding the dye when possible, suggesting alternatives like dye-free or naturally colored foods, such as those using beet extract. However, Alan expressed concern for families without easy access to these options, emphasizing the need for careful choices within available resources.
As debates around red dye No. 3 continue, individual stories from families, coupled with expert insights, highlight a growing preference for caution. While science inches forward, parents and guardians are making informed choices about what their children consume, anticipating regulatory changes. Whether the dye’s ban becomes nationwide or not, the dialogue it has sparked is influencing dietary decisions and encouraging safer food practices.
