

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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:
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.
"This is the Iraq War 2.0 with a South American flavor to it," warned one Democratic senator.
US President Donald Trump late Tuesday declared a blockade on "all sanctioned oil tankers" approaching and leaving Venezuela, a major escalation in what's widely seen as an accelerating march to war with the South American country.
The "total and complete blockade," Trump wrote on his social media platform, will only be lifted when Venezuela returns to the US "all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us."
"Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America," Trump wrote, referring to the massive US military buildup in the Caribbean. "It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before."
The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which has mobilized its military in response to the US president's warmongering, denounced Trump's comments as a "grotesque threat" aimed at "stealing the riches that belong to our homeland."
The US-based anti-war group CodePink said in a statement that "Trump’s assertion that Venezuela must 'return' oil, land, and other assets to the United States exposes the true objective" of his military campaign.
"Venezuela did not steal anything from the United States. What Trump describes as 'theft' is Venezuela’s lawful assertion of sovereignty over its own natural resources and its refusal to allow US corporations to control its economy," said CodePink. "A blockade, a terrorist designation, and a military buildup are steps toward war. Congress must act immediately to stop this escalation, and the international community must reject this lawless threat."
The announced naval blockade—an act of aggression under international law—came a week after the Trump administration seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela and made clear that it intends to intercept more.
US Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), one of the leaders of a war powers resolution aimed at preventing the Trump administration from launching a war on Venezuela without congressional approval, said Tuesday that "a naval blockade is unquestionably an act of war."
"A war that the Congress never authorized and the American people do not want," Castro added, noting that a vote on his resolution is set for Thursday. "Every member of the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to decide if they support sending Americans into yet another regime change war."
"This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela."
Human rights organizations have accused the Republican-controlled Congress of abdicating its responsibilities as the Trump administration takes belligerent and illegal actions in international waters and against Venezuela directly, claiming without evidence to be combating drug trafficking.
Last month, Senate Republicans—some of whom are publicly clamoring for the US military to overthrow Maduro's government—voted down a Venezuela war powers resolution. Two GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Democrats in supporting the resolution.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Tuesday that "the White House minimized Republican 'yes' votes by promising that Trump would seek Congress’ authorization before initiating hostilities against Venezuela itself."
"Trump today broke that promise to his own party’s lawmakers by ordering a partial blockade on Venezuelan ships," wrote Williams. "A blockade, including a partial one, definitively constitutes an act of war. Trump is starting a war against Venezuela without congressional authorization."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) warned in a television appearance late Monday that members of the Trump administration are "going to do everything they can to get us into this war."
"This is the Iraq War 2.0 with a South American flavor to it," he added. "This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela."
"Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it," Sen. Mark Kelly said of administration officials after the meeting.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that the Pentagon will not release unedited video footage of a September airstrike that killed two men who survived an initial strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea, a move that followed a briefing with congressional lawmakers described by one Democrat as an "exercise in futility" and by another as "a joke."
Hegseth said that members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees would be given a chance to view video of the September 2 "double-tap" strike, which experts said was illegal like all the other boat bombings. The secretary did not say whether all congressional lawmakers would be provided access to the footage.
“Of course we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public,” Hegseth told reporters following a closed-door briefing during which he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio fielded questions from lawmakers.
As with a similar briefing earlier this month, Tuesday's meeting left some Democrat attendees with more questions than answers.
“The administration came to this briefing empty-handed,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters. “If they can’t be transparent on this, how can you trust their transparency on all the other issues swirling about in the Caribbean?”
That includes preparations for a possible attack on oil-rich Venezuela, which include the deployment of US warships and thousands of troops to the region and the authorization of covert action aimed at toppling the government of longtime Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Tuesday's briefing came as House lawmakers prepare to vote this week on a pair of war powers resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from waging war on Venezuela. A similar bipartisan resolution recently failed in the Senate.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-author of one of the new war powers resolution, said in a statement: “Today’s briefing from Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth was an exercise in futility. It did nothing to address the serious legal, strategic, and moral concerns surrounding the administration’s unprecedented use of US military force in the Caribbean and Pacific."
"As of today, the administration has already carried out 25 such strikes over three months, extrajudicially killing 95 people," Meeks noted. "That this briefing to members of Congress only occurred more than three months since the strikes began—despite numerous requests for classified and public briefings—further proves these operations are unable to withstand scrutiny and lack a defensible legal rationale."
Briefing attendee Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)—who is in the administration's crosshairs for reminding US troops that military rules and international law require them to disobey illegal orders—said of Trump officials, "Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it."
Defending Hegseth's decision to not make the boat strike video public, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that “there’s a lot of members that’s gonna walk out there and that’s gonna leak classified information and there’s gonna be certain ones that you hold accountable."
Mullin singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who, along with the Somalian American community at large, has been the target of mounting Islamophobic and racist abuse by Trump and his supporters.
“Not everybody can go through the same background checks that need to be cleared on this,” he said. “Do you think Omar needs all this information? I will say no.”
Rejecting GOP arguments against releasing the video, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said after attending Tuesday's briefing: “I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think the American people should see this video. And all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”
"This administration's racist cruelty knows no limits, expanding their travel ban to include even more African and Muslim-majority countries, even Palestinians fleeing a genocide," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
President Donald Trump faced sharp criticism on Tuesday after further expanding his travel ban—an effort the US leader launched during his first term, reinstated upon returning to office in January, and previously ramped up in June.
The Republican's new proclamation maintains full restrictions for people from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and introduces them for travelers from Laos and Sierra Leone, who previously faced partial limitations.
Trump also added Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria to that list, just days after he vowed to "retaliate" for an Islamic State gunman killing three Americans, including two service members, and wounding three others in Syria. Journalist James Stout warned that "expanding the travel ban to Syria leaves few options for the people who fought and defeated the Islamic State and are being increasingly threatened by the Syrian state."
While the US government does not recognize Palestine as a state—and has backed Israel's genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip—the president also imposed full restrictions on individuals holding travel documents issued by the Palestinian Authority.
"The harm isn't theoretical," stressed Etan Nechin, a New York-based reporter for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Pointing to Palestinian peace activist Awdah Hathaleen, who earlier this year was denied entry at San Francisco International Airport, deported, and then murdered by an Israeli settler in the West Bank, the journalist suggested that Trump and his allies know the consequences of the travel ban, and "they don't care."
As Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, Sudan, Palestine, and South Sudan topped the International Rescue Committee's annual humanitarian crisis forecast.
Trump's latest proclamation continues partial restrictions for Burundi, Cuba, Togo, and Venezuela, and adds such limitations for Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
It also lifts a ban on nonimmigrant visas for people from Turkmenistan but maintains the suspension of entry for them as immigrants, with a White House fact sheet stating the country "has engaged productively with the United States and demonstrated significant progress."
Writer Mark Chadbourn said, "It's a white nationalist list—mainly Africa, some Middle East, plus Haiti and Cuba."
Here is a map of the affected countries (excluding Tonga), to give you a sense of how much this new ban restricts immigration from Africa in particular.Of the newly-added country, Nigeria faces the largest impact, with tens of thousands of visas issued every year to Nigerians.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 3:58 PM
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, said that "this administration's racist cruelty knows no limits, expanding their travel ban to include even more African and Muslim-majority countries, even Palestinians fleeing a genocide."
Tlaib also accused the president, along with his deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, of wanting the United States to resemble a Ku Klux Klan event, declaring that "Trump and Stephen Miller won't be satisfied until our country has the demographics of a klan rally."
As the Associated Press noted:
The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend...
The Afghan man accused of shooting the two National Guard troops near the White House has pleaded not guilty to murder and assault charges. In the aftermath of that incident, the administration announced a flurry of immigration restrictions, including further restrictions on people from those initial 19 countries who were already in the US.
Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president of US Legal Programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, said in a statement that "IRAP condemns the Trump administration's escalating crackdown on immigrants from Muslim-majority and nonwhite countries. This expanded ban is not about national security but instead is another shameful attempt to demonize people simply for where they are from."
"Subjecting more people to this policy is especially harmful given the administration's recent invocation of the travel ban to prevent immigrants already living in the United States from accessing basic immigration benefits, including pulling them out of line at citizenship ceremonies," she continued.
"The expanded proclamation notably includes Palestinians and eliminates some exceptions to the original ban," she added. "This racist and xenophobic ban will keep families apart, but we are prepared to defend our clients, their communities, and the American values of welcome, justice, and dignity for all."