Why A Federal Ban On Red Dye No. 3 Is Actually Conservative

Many in the MAHA movement have applauded the Food and Drug Administration’s recent ban on Red No. 3, an artificial dye used to give food products a red or pink hue. The news blew up social media, with many X users celebrating the move. Critics are pushing back on the ban, claiming it lacks clear scientific evidence and tramples on choice — but their protestations fall flat. 

The widely supported claim is that the additive that does everything from brightening Froot Loops to putting the red in red velvet cake is carcinogenic. This was the rationale the FDA offered for the ban, citing the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits them from authorizing “a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.” California also determined Red No. 3 to cause neurobehavioral issues in children and initiated a ban in 2023.

Some are concerned, however, claiming the move constitutes government overreach. They worry it is the beginning of a slippery slope when it comes to the potential power the MAHA movement and RFK Jr. will wield in the new administration. Even Trump was leery of Kennedy’s enthusiasm for regulation, warning him, “Leave the oil to me. … Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold. Other than that, go have a good time, Bobby.” 

Others say the evidence proving the dye causes cancer is shoddy and causes food additive alarmism. Steve Milloy, who goes by the handle @junkscience on X, said in a video, “The food police and food nannies are trying hard to scare you with the notion that the food industry is poisoning us and our children with various food additives.” 

He says the claim that Red No. 3 causes cancer rests on a single study done in 1987 that showed an excessive amount of the dye over 30 months caused a statistically significant number of lab rats to develop thyroid adenomas. Milloy says this doesn’t prove Red 3 causes cancer, “not even close.” He said the rats’ tumors were all benign and that male rats are “a poor model for studying thyroid effects in humans.”

“Rats are not little people after all,” Milloy said, noting that the dosage used on the rats equated to a 66-pound child eating 184,000 red jelly beans per day. 

This same argument was employed by the National Confectioners Association to oppose Pennsylvania’s bill to prohibit the use of the dye in foods. “Enough is enough — Pennsylvania is the latest in a series of states that is proposing to dismantle our national food safety system in an emotionally-driven campaign that lacks scientific backing,” said Chris Gindlesperger, the organization’s senior vice president of public affairs and communications.

Back in the day, these types of disputes from industry lobbyists would have likely been met with disdain from conservatives claiming that any outright ban from the government constitutes overreach. But over the past few years, Americans, and an increasing number of conservatives, have become extremely skeptical of “the science,” opting for common sense when it comes to making choices concerning their health. 

Leftists would argue conservatives are being hypocritical. After all, it’s conservatives who often point to the Second Amendment to prevent the government from coming for their guns after every school shooting, a tragic and all-too-frequent event with much more lethal consequences than Red No. 3. It’s conservatives who don’t want the government to restrict our speech or gas-powered vehicles or Covid therapeutics. So why are we up in arms over what, according to the “science,” could be a fairly innocuous synthetic color additive made from petroleum, chemically known as erythrosine?

A better question may be: Why was this chemical with zero nutritional value put in our food in the first place? The artificial food coloring was added to make unhealthy food options attractive to kids. The ingredient is often found alongside sugar in foods such as candy, cereal, and juices. Removing the chemical does not deprive anyone of a positive good. Taste will not be sacrificed, simply one tactic to market junk food to kids. Natural ingredients that lack harmful effects, such as beets, are the alternatives to color foods in other countries where the dye has been banned.

Criticism from those who stand to profit from keeping the dye in foods demonstrates the manipulative machinations of the additive. According to a report in The Washington Post, Sarah Codrea, the executive director for the International Association of Color Manufacturers, “which represents the color additives industry,” stands behind the dye, saying in a statement that it is “safe for its intended uses.” She argues yanking the dye from products will drive up costs for buyers. 

Well, if its intended use was simply a ploy to make junk food more appealing and cheaper, then RFK Jr. is right: It’s time to care more about our children’s health than the profits of corporations that use manipulative tactics to promote junk food. Conservatives aren’t fans of a heavy-handed government, but we’re also not fans of experimenting on God’s perfect human design. 

Furthermore, the debate also highlights the difference between conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives are not opposed to government intervention. We’re opposed to ill-defined government intervention, wielded by an unelected bureaucracy captured by corporations, that lacks the support of those who are supposed to have the ultimate say: we the people. 

When it comes to Red No. 3, we the people have spoken. Finally, someone is listening. 

Jennifer Galardi spent decades as a health and wellness expert and writes about health, culture, and policy. She is a health reporter for The Epoch Times and founder and director of Center for Healthy America. Her work has also been published in The New York Sun, The Blaze, and The American Spectator, along with many other health outlets. Follow her on X at @JennGalardi or visit her website.