I'm confused. This is notice from the FDA that the additive will no longer be permitted. It then goes on to explain why it's perfectly fine to permit it....

The petition requested the agency review whether the Delaney Clause applied and cited, among other data and information, two studies that showed cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3 due to a rat specific hormonal mechanism. The way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans. Relevant exposure levels to FD&C Red No. 3 for humans are typically much lower than those that cause the effects shown in male rats. Studies in other animals and in humans did not show these effects; claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information.

This is what we've decided to do and this is why that decision doesn't make any sense. More at 11.

[–] lewdian69@lemmy.world 60 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

From the very first sentence. "The FDA is revoking the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 as a matter of law, based on the Delaney Clause "

From the next paragraph after your quote, emphasis mine.

"The Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals. "

Perhaps we don't agree with the Delaney Clause or think the FDA should not have a role in protecting animals, but they are the regulatory body for human and animal food, and by removing this dye from all food helps prevent animals from accidental ingestion.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ah, that's the bit I missed 'or animals'.

Without that it just sounds like they're arguing against themselves.

[–] lewdian69@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I mean, it still sounds like they are arguing against themselves even with the 'or animals' to be fair.

[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It sorta sounds reminiscent of MSG, in that they gave rats an excessive amount until it finally caused genetic damage.

I don't disagree with using natural and benign colorants (or even none at all), but this almost borders on dishonesty by tricking the ill-informed which can trigger a backlash of even more distrust.

[–] lewdian69@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Just not as overtly racist as attitudes to MSG.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago

The explanation is literally the sentence after you stopped quoting.

The Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.

They're prohibited from authorizing it as per the Delaney Clause because it causes cancer in rats. The FDA doesn't get to make decisions unilaterally, they have to follow guidelines. Because their guidelines say that color additives can't be authorized if they induce cancer in animals, they can no longer authorize the additive.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 36 points 5 months ago (26 children)

Isn't Red 40 the more concerning dye since it causes behavior issues in kids? Can't we just stick with using ground up beetles for our red colors instead of petroleum products?

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Last I looked at it the support for that claim looked shaky. Can't we just use plant-based natural reds? No need to grind bugs when you can grind beets.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can't we just have beige food?

[–] wrekone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

You can definitely have that. Have mine.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

The claim is dubious.

Anecdotally, I stopped drinking mio with red 40 and switched to something dye free, and I'm much better regulated.

But anecdotes aren't data. YMMV.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 3 points 5 months ago

Okay, Doug Funnie.

load more comments (23 replies)

[–] sandalbucket@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

Thankfully not red 40. I’m red 40 maxxing. Give me your gummy worms and fruit punch Gatorade. I’ve had a headache for 3 years but the immunity is building, I can feel it.

[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago

Communist party is in shambles

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Here's a list of foods that contain red dye 3. https://www.newsweek.com/list-red-dye-3-fda-food-drink-ban-2015450

[–] Shard@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Certain Sodas and fruit flavored drinks

Great. That was usefully specific.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I looked around briefly but couldn't find anything better. There must be one!

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Fuckkkk!!!! Not my vitamin gummies!

[–] buzz86us@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Was red #3 the one derived from a bug?

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nope. That's Natural Red 4, aka carmine aka cochineal. And if you're squicked out about bugs in your food then boy oh boy have I got bad news for you lol. Anyway bugs ass food is fine, personally, as long as they're ground up into dust first.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

The difference between eating a few by accident and having them ground up for coloring matters to vegetarians.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago

Random Texas court ruling coming in 3... 2... 1...

[–] admin@science.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@science@lemmy.world @science@beehaw.org @news@lemmy.world @health@lemmy.world @usnews@beehaw.org Follow for health and science news to the Fediverse

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 2 points 5 months ago

Where are biohackers being booed the most?