CSPI Says Food Dyes Pose Rainbow of Risks: Cancer, Hyperactivity, Allergic Reactions
Food dyes--used in everything from M&Ms to Manischewitz Matzo
Balls to Kraft salad dressings--pose risks of cancer, hyperactivity in
children, and allergies, and should be banned, according to a
new report
by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest. A top government scientist agrees, and says that food dyes
present unnecessary risks to the public.
Food dyes--used in everything from M&Ms to Manischewitz Matzo
Balls to Kraft salad dressings--pose risks of cancer, hyperactivity in
children, and allergies, and should be banned, according to a
new report
by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest. A top government scientist agrees, and says that food dyes
present unnecessary risks to the public.
The three most widely used dyes, Red 40, Yellow 5, and
Yellow 6, are contaminated with
known
carcinogens
, says CSPI. Another dye, Red 3, has been acknowledged
for years by the Food and Drug Administration to be a carcinogen, yet is
still in the food supply.
Despite those concerns, each year manufacturers pour
about 15 million pounds of eight synthetic
dyes into
our foods
. Per capita consumption of dyes has increased five-fold
since 1955, thanks in part to the proliferation of brightly colored
breakfast cereals, fruit drinks, and candies pitched to children.
"These
synthetic chemicals
do absolutely nothing to improve
the nutritional quality or safety of foods, but trigger behavior
problems in children and, possibly, cancer in anybody," said CSPI
executive director Michael F. Jacobson, co-author of the 58-page report,
"Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks." "The Food and Drug Administration
should
ban
dyes
, which would force industry to color foods with real food
ingredients, not toxic petrochemicals."
Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 have long been
known to cause allergic reactions in some people. CSPI says that while
those reactions are not common, they can be serious and provide reason
enough to ban those dyes. Furthermore, numerous studies have
demonstrated that dyes cause
hyperactivity
in
children
.
But the biggest concern is cancer. Back in 1985, the
acting commissioner of the FDA said that Red 3, one of the lesser-used
dyes, "has clearly been shown to induce cancer" and was "of greatest
public health concern." However, Secretary of Agriculture John R. Block
pressed the Department of Health and Human Services not to ban the dye,
and he apparently prevailed--notwithstanding the Delaney Amendment that
forbids the use of in foods of cancer-causing color additives. Each
year about 200,000 pounds of Red 3 are poured into such foods as Betty
Crocker's Fruit Roll-Ups and ConAgra's Kid Cuisine frozen meals. Since
1985 more than five million pounds of the dye have been used.
Tests on lab animals of Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40,
Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 showed signs of causing cancer or suffered from
serious flaws, said the consumer group. Yellow 5 also caused mutations,
an indication of possible carcinogenicity, in six of 11 tests.
In addition, according to the report, FDA tests show that
the three most-widely used dyes, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, are
tainted with low levels of cancer-causing compounds, including benzidine
and 4-aminobiphenyl in Yellow 5. However, the levels actually could be
far higher, because in the 1990s the FDA and Health Canada found a
hundred times as much benzidine in a bound form that is released in the
colon, but not detected in the routine tests of purity conducted by the
FDA.
"Dyes add no benefits whatsoever to foods, other than
making them more 'eye-catching' to increase sales," said James Huff, the
associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' National Toxicology Program.
"CSPI's scientifically detailed report on possible health effects of
food dyes raises many questions about their safety. Some dyes have
caused cancers in animals, contain cancer-causing contaminants, or have
been inadequately tested for cancer or other problems. Their continued
use presents unnecessary risks to humans, especially young children.
It's disappointing that the FDA has not addressed the toxic threat posed
by food dyes."
CSPI
's
report notes that FDA's regulations mandate a stricter standard of
safety for color additives than other food additives, saying that there
must be "convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive."
The standard of "convincing evidence" does not apply to preservatives,
emulsifiers, and other additives.
CSPI charges that the FDA is not enforcing the law in
several regards:
-
Red 3 and Citrus Red 2 should be banned under the
Delaney amendment, because they caused cancer in rats (some uses were
banned in 1990), as should Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, which are
tainted with cancer-causing contaminants. -
Evidence suggests, though does not prove, that Blue 1, Blue
2, Green 3, Red 40, and Yellow 6 cause cancer in animals. There
certainly is not "convincing evidence" of safety. -
Dyed foods should be considered adulterated under the law,
because the dyes make a food "appear better or of greater value than it
is"--typically by masking the absence of fruit, vegetable, or other more
costly ingredient.
In a letter sent today, CSPI urged the FDA to ban all dyes
because the scientific studies do not provide convincing evidence of
safety, but do provide significant evidence of harm.
A ninth dye, Orange B, is approved for coloring sausage
casings, but in 1978 the FDA proposed banning it because it was found to
be toxic to rats. The industry has not used Orange B in more than a
decade. Also, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has
labeled Citrus Red 2 a carcinogen, and the FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives said "this color should not be used as a food additive."
However, it poses little risk because it is approved only for coloring
the skins of oranges.
Because of concerns about dyes' impairment of children's
behavior, the
British government
asked companies to phase out most
dyes by last December 31, and the
European Union
is requiring, beginning on July 20, a
warning notice on most dyed foods. CSPI predicted that the label
notice--"may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children"--likely will be the death knell for dyes in all of Europe.
The greater government oversight and public concern
across the Atlantic results in McDonald's Strawberry Sundae in Britain
being colored with strawberries, but in the United States with Red dye
40. Likewise, the British version of Fanta orange soda gets its bright
color from pumpkin and carrot extract, but in the United States the
color comes from Red 40 and Yellow 6. Starburst Chews and Skittles,
both Mars products, contain synthetic dyes in the United States, but not
in Britain.
Fortunately, says CSPI, many natural colorings are
available to replace dyes. Beet juice, beta-carotene, blueberry juice
concentrate, carrot juice, grape skin extract, paprika, purple sweet
potato or corn, red cabbage, and turmeric are some of the substances
that provide a vivid spectrum of colors. However, CSPI warns that
"natural" does not always mean safe.
Carmine
and cochineal
--colorings obtained from a bright red insect--can cause
rare, but severe, anaphylactic reactions. Annatto, too, can cause
allergic reactions.
"Food Dyes: Rainbow of Risks" was written by Sarah
Kobylewski, a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular Toxicology Program at the
University of California, Los Angeles, and Michael F. Jacobson,
executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Jacobson is author of
Eater's Digest: The Consumer's Factbook of
Food Additives
(Doubleday, 1972).
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
Al Gore Says Fossil Fuel Industry Has 'Captured the COP Process'
The former U.S. vice president accused the United Arab Emirates of "abusing the public's trust" by naming the CEO of its national oil company as president of COP28.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said Sunday that fossil fuel interests have effectively seized the reins of the United Nations climate summit process, preventing the kind of ambitious action that scientists say is necessary to prevent catastrophic warming and all of its cascading impacts.
"This industry is way more effective at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions," Gore told Reuters on the sidelines of the COP28 summit in Dubai. "And they have captured the COP process itself now and overreached, abusing the public's trust by naming the CEO of one of the largest and least responsible oil companies in the world as head of the COP. It's an abuse of the public's right to have confidence in the processes by which the decisions about humanity's future are made."
Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, COP28 president and chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC)—which is planning a massive expansion of oil and gas production in the coming years—has insisted that any deal reached at the critical climate summit must include fossil fuels .
A
record number
of fossil fuel lobbyists are believed to be in attendance at the latest round of U.N. climate talks, and
little has been done
to curb their influence.
Gore's interview with Reuters came after he delivered a presentation highlighting the UAE's rising greenhouse gas emissions. Citing data from Climate TRACE—an emissions tracking coalition that he co-founded—Gore said the UAE's planet-warming emissions rose 7.5% last year compared to 2021, while the rest of the world's rose 1.5%.
As AFP reported Sunday, Dubai's skyline was "obscured by a blanket of smog rated as 'unhealthy'" as COP28 delegates attended day four of the summit, which was deemed "health day."
A Human Rights Watch report published Monday notes that the UAE's "dangerously high air pollution levels" are "creating major health risks for its citizens and residents." Pointing to World Health Organization estimates, the group observed that more than 1,800 people die from air pollution every year in the UAE.
"Even as the United Arab Emirates government works to burnish its image as a global climate leader," the report notes, "the country's vast fossil fuel production and use spew toxic pollutants into the air and contribute to climate change."
COP28 Head Claims There's 'No Science' Behind Fossil Fuel Phaseout
"This dismisses decades of work by IPCC scientists," said one expert. "Disgraceful."
Scientists and climate advocates responded with outrage Sunday to COP28 president Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber's claim that there is "no science" behind the push to rapidly phase out planet-warming fossil fuels, which Al Jaber's company is extracting on a large scale .
Al Jaber's comments, first reported by The Guardian on Sunday, came in response to questioning from Elders chair Mary Robinson during a virtual She Changes Climate discussion. Robinson told Al Jaber that "we're in an absolute crisis that is hurting women and children more than anyone... and it's because we have not yet committed to phasing out fossil fuel."
The COP28 chief and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) CEO responded dismissively, saying he "accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation" and not to take part in "any discussion that is alarmist," according to audio published by
The Guardian
.
"There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phaseout of fossil fuel is what's going to achieve 1.5°C," Al Jaber added. "Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phaseout of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves."
That position runs directly counter to the outspoken stance of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who said Friday that "the 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels," arguing that "the science is clear."
Joelle Gergis, a climate scientist and lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report , called Al Jaber's remarks "disgraceful."
"This dismisses decades of work by IPCC scientists," Gergis wrote on social media.
"'Sending us back to caves' is the oldest of fossil fuel industry tropes: it's verging on climate denial."
The IPCC, which has synthesized the research of hundreds of climate scientists from around the world, has argued that any successful effort to prevent catastrophic planetary warming "will involve a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use."
"More than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal and unsustainable energy and land use has led to global warming of 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels," the IPCC said following the release of its latest report earlier this year. "This has resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world."
Other recent research has warned that rich nations must completely halt oil and gas production by 2034 to give the world a 50% chance of limiting warming to the 1.5°C target set by the Paris Agreement.
Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics, told The Guardian that Al Jaber's response to Robinson was "extraordinary, revealing, worrying, and belligerent."
"'Sending us back to caves' is the oldest of fossil fuel industry tropes: it's verging on climate denial," said Hare.
Al Jaber's comments, which he says have been misrepresented , were seen as further confirmation that he is ill-suited to lead a climate summit given his simultaneous role as the top executive at one of the world's largest fossil fuel firms. A Global Witness analysis released over the weekend found that ADNOC is on track to become the second-largest oil producer in the world by 2050, and Al Jaber has been accused of using his position as COP28 president to pursue oil and gas deals.
"ADNOC plans to produce more oil than any of the 'Big 5' supermajors—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, TotalEnergies," Global Witness found. "In fact, its projected output will positively dwarf that of the European majors; ADNOC's 35.9 billion barrels is 49% higher alone than the projected 24.1 billion barrels production of Shell, BP, and Total combined."
On Monday, the COP28 presidency published a summary of the World Climate Action Summit, a gathering of more than 150 heads of state aimed at facilitating coordinated climate action.
The document states that world leaders "highlighted the opportunities to cut emissions in every sector and to accelerate the technology innovation to address scope 3 emissions, as well as the phase-down of fossil fuels in support of a transition consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C."
Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International , said in a statement that "strong support from the leaders' summit to address fossil fuels in the final COP28 agreement is a promising sign, but it is just good enough."
"Leaders must raise their ambition above a phase-down, and agree to immediately stop new fossil fuel expansion, and build a fast, full, fair, and funded phaseout of all fossil fuels while rapidly phasing in renewables," said Ioualalen. "Contrary to the COP28 president's assertions, the science is abundantly clear that warming will continue as long as we keep producing and burning fossil fuels."
Jeff Bezos Donates $120 Million to Fight Homelessness, Then Invests $500 Million to Make It Worse
"The last thing Americans need is a Bezos-backed investment company further consolidating single-family homes and putting homeownership out of reach for more and more people. Housing should be a right, not a speculative commodity."
Among the three richest people on the planet, mega-billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos received some praise last week for announcing approximately $120 million in donations to a number of groups fighting the scourge of homelessness in the United States.
"It's a privilege to support these orgs in their inspiring mission to help families regain stability," Bezos wrote in an Instagram post touting the multiple grants to 38 individual nonprofits in 22 states.
But hold your applause.
Just days after word of the charitable gifts—a minuscule drop in the bucket compared to the estimated $170 billion fortune he possesses—a Bezos-controlled company called Arrived dropped $500 million of new investment in single-family homes with a venture fund that critics warn will make the nation's housing crisis even worse.
According to GV Wire :
Since its inception in 2021, Arrived has attracted nearly a half a million customers, operating as a fractional real estate investing platform. The company’s model is similar to buying a slice of the American pie, allowing investors to purchase shares of single-family rentals for as little as $100.
The fund itself—called the Single Family Residential Fund—allows investors to purchase portions of various homes and later trade, hold, or redeem their "chips" on a rolling basis like players at a casino.
While many Americans, especially younger people and working-class families, have been steadily priced out of homeownership by soaring costs and, more recently, higher interest rates, Arrived preys on that reality by selling the idea that owning a piece of a home as an investment is an "American Dream" akin to owning the home one lives in.
Speculative investors, however, are likely not among those struggling to make ends meet but this kind of investment behavior, warn critics, is certain to drive home prices even higher.
Rep.
Ro Khanna
(D-Calif.)—who has co-authored legislation to halt the rent-gouging and inflated home prices that result from such investment schemes—ripped Bezos' latest move.
"The last thing Americans need is a Bezos-backed investment company further consolidating single-family homes and putting homeownership out of reach for more and more people," Khanna tweeted on Friday. "Housing should be a right, not a speculative commodity."
As the author writing under the name Homeless Romantic on Medium noted last week, a primary concern "raised by critics is the monopolization of housing" that Arrived is pushing.
"By acquiring a large number of single-family homes," reads the post, "Bezos and other investors could consolidate control over the housing supply, giving them significant influence over rental prices and market dynamics. This could make it more difficult for ordinary individuals and families to find affordable housing, particularly in high-demand areas."
It wasn't lost on many that there was a disconnect between his relatively paltry gift to organizations valiantly standing on the frontlines to fight homelessness with the one hand, while simultaneously using his massive fortune to exacerbate the crisis with a for-profit venture on the other.
What else could he do? People had ideas.
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it would cost a mere $20 billion annually to end homelessness in the United States.
In response to the latest revelations about his charitable giving, a few people said a person worth nearly $200 billion like Bezos "could literally end homelessness by himself if he wanted to."