0 like 0 dislike
in General Factchecking by Newbie (270 points)
edited by

As red 3 is already illegal in cosmetic products, hundreds of candy and additional food items still use this chemical. According to Science in public interest, "Since the early 1980s FDA had evidence that Red 3 caused cancer in laboratory animals (2)." These results were only ruled as 'considered' but never good enough to make any real decisions. Red 3 makes up over 2,000 food brands in the United States. So when looking from an economical stand point, that would be a big lose. But when looking at the health of our public, it's not in our best interest to keep red 3 legal.

 From CSPI president Dr. Peter Luire, "If the data were strong enough to ban Red 3 in cosmetics and external drugs 30 years ago, they’re surely strong enough to ban it today in foods, oral drugs, and dietary supplements (4)."   Not only is the rise of cancer diagnosis a concern but what's also concerning is the fact that countries like Australia, United Kingdom and New Zealand have already banned red 3. 

by Newbie (440 points)
0 0
Why do you think Red 3 was ever included in foods/cosmetics if it's so harmful?

1 Answer

0 like 0 dislike
by Newbie (300 points)

The claim in the article that there is increased pressure to ban red 3 is true. There has been pressure from public health advocates and now renewed pressure by California becoming the first state to ban red 3 dye reported by NPR, The Week and the CSPI. 

There is plenty of evidence supporting why it should be banned. However, I feel that since should is objective its hard to answer for sure. Some reasons the banned can be justified is the FDA and the National Library of Medicine both list red 3 being a carcinogenic in animals. But, the FDA also lists the cause of "cancer in animals, specifically rats, doesn't occur in humans so these animal results have limited relevance to humans" FD&C Red No. 3. The verdict of red 3 being banned in food has been revisited multiple times but the verdict remains the same. A study done on the potential impacts of red 3 in food also agrees that there's a "need to re-evaluate exposure in children and for additional research to provide a more complete database." The CSPI and NIH both have reports on studies linking behavioral issues to red dye 3 here and here. NBC News even did an article. According to most of the sources listed, red dye 3 is used mostly to make the red color pop. Based off this, banning red 3 sounds reasonable. 

Community Rules


Be respectful.

There is bound to be disagreement on a site about misinformation. Assume best intentions on everyone's part.

If you are new to factchecking, take some time to learn about it. "How to Factcheck" has some resources for getting started. Even if you disagree with these materials, they'll help you understand the language of this community better.

News Detective is for uncovering misinformation and rumors. This is not a general interest question-answer site for things someone could Google.

Posting

The title is the "main claim" that you're trying to factcheck.

Example:
Factcheck This: Birds don't exist

If possible, LINK TO to the place you saw the claim.

Answering

LINK TO YOUR EVIDENCE or otherwise explain the source ("I called this person, I found it in this book, etc.")

But don't just drop a link. Give an explanation, copy and paste the relevant information, etc.

News Detective is not responsible for anything anyone posts on the platform.
...