FDA Should Not Have Banned Red Dye No. 3 Due To Lack Of Evidence Of Harm: CATO
Cato Health Scholars Comment on the Ban of Red Dye No.3
Editor’s note: As mentioned in our article earlier today, the FDA ignored the law by Congress requiring them to stop requiring animal testing, and they also attempted to outlaw N-Acetyl Cysteine, a vitamin that has been used commonly for decades, using a warning letter to grant a patent that would have been illegitimate.
Just as people who prefer organic foods over conventional options can freely purchase them in a growing market regulated by third-party certifiers, people should also have the option to buy products that don’t contain red dye No. 3 in a free market if they are worried about it.
In a recent statement, Dr. Jeffrey Singer addressed the FDA’s call for Red Dye No. 3 to be removed from food by mid-January 2027 and eliminated from ingested drugs the following year.
“This decision is not evidence-based but politically motivated. There is no conclusive evidence that red dye No. 3 causes cancer in humans. The doses that caused thyroid cancer in male rats were 60 times higher than typical human consumption levels. This recalls the saccharin scare of the 1970s, when the FDA required products containing saccharin to carry a cancer warning label due to animal studies. Although Congress later removed the label, the damage had been done—many avoided saccharin-containing products that might have benefited them.
Just as people who prefer organic foods over conventional options can freely purchase them in a growing market regulated by third-party certifiers, people should also have the option to buy products that don’t contain red dye No. 3 in a free market if they are worried about it. The FDA’s regulatory monopoly should not infringe on adults’ autonomy to choose less expensive or more visually appealing foods containing the substance if they so desire. Autonomous adults must have the freedom to make their own risk-benefit assessments.”
Cato director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon adds, “A civilized, egalitarian society protects consumers from harm not by taking away their rights to make their own decisions, but by punishing people who actually harm consumers. If it turns out that Red No. 3 causes cancer or any other harm, and that producers did not take reasonable care to ascertain and apprise consumers of the risks, so that consumers could make informed decisions, then consumers should be able to sue for products-liability.”
If you would like to speak with Michael Cannon or Dr. Jeffrey Singer about this topic, please feel free to reach out to us.
Banner Image: Red gecko. Image Credit – David Clode
CATO Institute
For more than 40 years, Cato has led the charge for liberty in our nation and around the world. The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization—or think tank—that creates a presence for and promotes libertarian ideas in policy debates. Our mission is to originate, disseminate, and advance solutions based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. We make liberty come alive for people by sharing our research and ideas in clear language, free of jargon. We find common ground and work with individuals and groups across the political spectrum in order to build a society that is freer, happier, and more prosperous. We hope you will join us.
I say it’s the people choice. I didn’t mind my Red Food Dye #3. Never hurt me and I’m not a spring chicken.
When I bake, I used to love the red color. This is just over policing of our foods.
The F D A should do a better job and let the people decide what they want to put in their bodies!