Red dye #3 banned due to link to cancer, yet still being sold until 2027

One has to take a step back and ask the question: why do we have chemicals with names like Red Dye #3 added to our food? What happened to #1 and #2? And why are we using laboratory-made colorants instead of actual food? It’s when you start asking those questions that you realize there is more to this story. And in this case, the story is not flattering.

Yes, the decision to remove Red Dye #3 from food and ingested drugs is good news. But it is also a reflection of how long something can remain in circulation after serious concerns are already known. Because if something is concerning enough to remove today, the real question becomes: why was it allowed yesterday? And why is it still allowed tomorrow?

As of January 15, 2025, the FDA revoked authorization for Red No. 3 under the Delaney Clause—a law that clearly states a substance that causes cancer in humans or animals should not be permitted as a food additive.^1,2 And yet, manufacturers have until January 2027 for food, and January 2028 for ingested drugs, to reformulate.¹

Let that sink in. A substance can meet the threshold for removal… and still remain in products for years.

If something is dangerous enough to revoke, it should be dangerous enough to remove. Not phased out. Not slowly replaced. Removed.

We don’t treat immediate threats this way. If food is contaminated with pathogens like E. coli, it is pulled immediately. Products are recalled because the harm is immediate and visible.

But when harm takes years to develop? When it shows up quietly, later, in the form of cancer or chronic disease? Suddenly the urgency fades. Suddenly timelines stretch. Suddenly we hear about reformulation challenges and supply chains.

That is not a scientific distinction. That is a practical one—and it favors the producer, not the consumer.

The FDA has stated that the cancer observed in male rats exposed to Red No. 3 may involve a mechanism that does not operate the same way in humans, and that typical human exposure levels are lower.² That may be true. But what that actually means is this: the human data is limited, not definitive.

And that matters. Because “not proven harmful in humans” is not the same as “proven safe.” Especially when the law itself was written to err on the side of caution.

And here’s another question that doesn’t get asked enough: if animal testing is valid enough to justify banning a substance, why isn’t it valid enough to justify removing it immediately?

We rely on animal data to identify risk. We use it to make regulatory decisions. But when that same data conflicts with economic interests, suddenly it becomes less decisive. That contradiction should make anyone uncomfortable.

History shows this isn’t new. There was a time when formaldehyde was added to milk, borax was used in butter, and mercury compounds were used in food products—practices that were later abandoned as their risks became undeniable.³

Progress in food safety has never been proactive. It has been reactive. Slow. Often reluctant. And usually pushed forward only after enough pressure builds.

So yes, removing Red Dye #3 is progress. But it is also part of a pattern: something is allowed, concerns emerge, action is delayed, and eventually it is removed—long after it probably should have been.

And it doesn’t stop here. Red No. 3 is being phased out, but other synthetic dyes remain. Some manufacturers are already shifting toward alternatives like Red 40. A different number does not automatically mean a different outcome. It just means the cycle continues.

Which brings this back to the individual.

Because while regulations move slowly, your choices don’t have to.

Read ingredient labels. If something says “Red 3,” “Red 40,” or simply “color added,” ask yourself why it is there. Food does not need synthetic dye to function as food.

The same goes for personal care products. Terms like “fragrance” or “natural flavors” can legally hide multiple undisclosed ingredients. If transparency matters, those labels matter.

Check your medications as well. If you want to avoid artificial dyes, ask your pharmacist if dye-free alternatives exist. And if they don’t, ask whether taking the contents without the colored capsule is an option in your specific case. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t—but the point is, there may be more options than you’re initially told.

Because too often, people assume they have no choice when in reality, they were never shown the alternatives.

And yes, cost matters. I understand that. I grew up in a household where every dollar counted. Sometimes the cheapest option is the only option. That is real life.

Poor does not mean powerless.

You can still read labels. You can still decide what not to buy. You can still question what you’re being sold.

Because at the end of the day, no system is going to protect your health faster than you can. Regulations help—but they lag. And sometimes, they lag by years.

So while we can acknowledge progress, we should also be honest about what it took to get here—and how long it took.

So yes, raise a glass—maybe even something organic if you prefer—to the removal of one problematic chemical from the food supply. But don’t mistake that toast for victory. It’s one step in a much longer process, and there is still more work to be done.

For Health,

Tober

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA to Revoke Authorization for the Use of Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs. January 15, 2025. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-revoke-authorization-use-red-no-3-food-and-ingested-drugs
2. Federal Register. Color Additive Petition: Request to Revoke the Use of FD&C Red No. 3. 2025. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2025-00830
3. Blum D. The Poison Squad: One Chemist’s Single-Minded Crusade for Food Safety at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Penguin Press; 2018.