February, 16 2011, 12:36pm EDT
FDA Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"
CSPI Says Artificial Caramel Coloring is Quite Different from Real Caramel
WASHINGTON
The "caramel coloring" used in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other foods is contaminated with two cancer-causing chemicals and should be banned, according to a regulatory petition filed today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
In contrast to the caramel one might make at home by melting sugar in a saucepan, the artificial brown coloring in colas and some other products is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperatures. Chemical reactions result in the formation of 2-methylimidazole and 4 methylimidazole, which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukemia in laboratory mice or rats.

The National Toxicology Program, the division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences that conducted the animal studies, said that there is "clear evidence" that both 2-MI and 4-MI are animal carcinogens. Chemicals that cause cancer in animals are considered to pose cancer threats to humans. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found significant levels of 4-MI in five brands of cola.
"Carcinogenic colorings have no place in the food supply, especially considering that their only function is a cosmetic one," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "The FDA should act quickly to revoke its approval of caramel colorings made with ammonia."
Federal regulations distinguish among four types of caramel coloring, two of which are produced with ammonia and two without it. CSPI wants the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the two made with ammonia. The type used in colas and other dark soft drinks is known as Caramel IV, or ammonia sulfite process caramel. Caramel III, which is produced with ammonia but not sulfites, is sometimes used in beer, soy sauce, and other foods.
Five prominent experts on animal carcinogenesis, including several who have worked at the National Toxicology Program, joined CSPI in calling on the FDA to bar the use of caramel colorings made with an ammonia process. "The American public should not be exposed to any cancer risk whatsoever as a result of consuming such chemicals, especially when they serve a non-essential, cosmetic purpose," the scientists wrote in a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
CSPI also says the phrase "caramel coloring" is misleading when used to describe colorings made with ammonia or sulfite. The terms "ammonia process caramel" or "ammonia sulfite process caramel" would be more accurate, and companies should not be allowed to label any products that contain such colorings as "natural," according to the group.
"Most people would interpret 'caramel coloring' to mean 'colored with caramel,' but this particular ingredient has little in common with ordinary caramel or caramel candy," Jacobson said. "It's a concentrated dark brown mixture of chemicals that simply does not occur in nature. Regular caramel isn't healthful, but at least it is not tainted with carcinogens."
In a little-noticed regulatory proceeding in California, state health officials have added 4 MI to the state's list of "chemicals known to the state to cause cancer." Under that state's Proposition 65, foods or other products containing more than certain levels of cancer-causing chemicals must carry warning labels. For 4-MI, that level is 16 micrograms per person per day from an individual product. Popular brands of cola contain about 200 micrograms of 4-MI per 20-ounce bottle--and many people, especially teenaged boys, consume more than that each day. If California's regulation is finalized, Coke, Pepsi, and other soft drinks would be required to bear a cancer warning label.
To put the risk from caramel coloring in context, CSPI says the ten teaspoons of obesity-causing sugars in a non-diet can of soda presents a greater health risk than the ammonia sulfite process caramel. But the levels of 4-MI in the tested colas still may be causing thousands of cancers in the U.S. population.
Separate from the risk due to caramel coloring, CSPI has been urging the FDA to ban synthetic food colorings, such as Yellow 5 and Red 40. Those dyes cause hyperactivity and other behavioral problems in children, and Red 3 and Yellows 5 and 6 pose cancer risks, according to CSPI. The FDA is holding a Food Advisory Committee review of that issue on March 30-31.
Over the years, CSPI's efforts have resulted in reductions in the use of, labeling requirements, or limits on Violet No. 1, sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate, sulfites, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, salt, and olestra.
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.
LATEST NEWS
Trump's Billionaire Education Secretary Makes 'Backroom Deal' to Shaft Low-Income Borrowers
Amid a cost-of-living crisis, millions of low-income borrowers may now be forced to spend several hundred more dollars a month paying for student loans.
Dec 09, 2025
As student debt exacerbates the financial struggles of millions of Americans, the Trump administration has taken a major step toward killing the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program.
On Tuesday, the Department of Education announced that it had reached a settlement with the state of Missouri to end the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, which allowed more than 7 million mostly low-income Americans to reduce their federal student loan payments.
Rather than setting monthly payments based on income, the SAVE program bases them on how much borrowers earn and the size of their families, which is referred to as an income-driven repayment option, or IDR. SAVE cut most enrollees' monthly loan payments in half and left 4.5 million of them, mostly those earning between 150–225% of the federal poverty level, paying $0 per month.
In March 2024, a coalition of 11 states led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sued in federal court to stop the SAVE plan. The next month a similar lawsuit was filed by another coalition of seven states led by Missouri's former attorney general, Andrew Bailey.
In February, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, blocking 8 million borrowers from accessing lower payments under the program. Now President Donald Trump's administration which aggressively opposes student loan forgiveness, has agreed to settle the lawsuit, effectively killing SAVE.
“For four years, the Biden administration sought to unlawfully shift student loan debt onto American taxpayers, many of whom either never took out a loan to finance their postsecondary education or never even went to college themselves, simply for a political win to prop up a failing administration,” said Undersecretary of Education Nicholas Kent. "The Trump administration is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme. The law is clear: if you take out a loan, you must pay it back."
The settlement also includes a provision requiring that, for the next 10 years, the Department of Education notify the state of Missouri at least 30 days in advance before instituting broad-based student debt relief.
As the Debt Collective, a membership-based debtors' union, explained in a post on social media: "30 days is enough notice that Missouri will find standing to sue for relief before it even happens. So not only is Trump gutting the SAVE plan, they're essentially putting a moratorium on cancellation for the next 10 years with this agreement."
"What Republicans admit is that the executive administration does have authority to cancel federally held student debt," the group added. "They just want to make it so that it will be administratively and practically impossible to deliver it because of this technicality. It's stealing in advance."
SAVE was already slated to end in 2028 following July's passage of Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which replaced it with a pair of less generous income-based repayment plans that require many debtors to pay hundreds more per month. The deadline to switch to one of the new plans will now move up, though the administration has not yet clarified when borrowers will have to switch.
The Debt Collective predicted that the end of SAVE "means many more debtors will likely be forced to default on their loans," which the group added "is bad for millions of families and our economy."
According to an analysis of federal student loan data from the American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, more than 12 million borrowers in the US are already in default or otherwise behind on their student loan payments.
Since their introduction, former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness policies have been chipped away at bit by bit through litigation. In 2023, the conservative US Supreme Court struck down the administration's plans to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of Americans, ruling that the plan exceeded the administration's executive authority. A year later, it halted SAVE as well while it considered the merits of the Missouri lawsuit.
The group Protect Borrowers, which supports student loan forgiveness, argues that SAVE is "not a novel use of executive power," noting that Congress gave the Education Department the authority to create IDRs in 1993 and that several other programs have been created since.
"This settlement is pure capitulation—it goes much further than the suit or the 8th Circuit order requires," said Persis Yu, the group's deputy executive director and managing counsel. "The real story here is the unrelenting, right-wing push to jack up costs on working people with student debt.”
A September survey by Data For Progress found that student loans make it more difficult for many borrowers to keep up with other bills amid a growing cost-of-living crisis: 42% of respondents said their debt payments had a negative impact on their ability to pay for food or housing. More than a third, 37%, said it had a negative impact on their ability to cover healthcare costs for themselves or their dependents, while the majority, 52%, said it had a negative impact on their ability to save for retirement.
“While millions of student loan borrowers struggle amidst the worsening affordability crisis as the rising costs of groceries, utilities, and healthcare continue to bury families in debt," Yu said, "billionaire Education Secretary Linda McMahon chose to strike a backroom deal with a right-wing state attorney general and strip borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Leads Call for Senate to Force RFK Jr. to Answer for 'War on Science'
"Failure to conduct an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy's actions would be an abdication of our responsibility—both from a moral perspective and as a matter of sound public health policy."
Dec 09, 2025
On the heels of a federal panel appointed by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voting to reverse a recommendation that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine, Sen. Bernie Sanders led a Tuesday call for the HHS leader to be hauled before a relevant congressional committee to answer for his actions that "undermine the health and well-being of the American people and people throughout the world."
In a letter signed by Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Sanders (I-Vt.), its ranking member, the lawmakers wrote to Republican Chair Bill Cassidy (La.), a medical doctor, to argue that "Kennedy has waged an unprecedented war on science and vaccines that have saved millions of lives," and demand his testimony.
The letter highlights Kennedy directing the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "to publish false information on its website suggesting that childhood vaccines cause autism," ousting a CDC director "who refused to rubber-stamp his dangerous and unsubstantiated" recommendations, spreading misinformation about the measles vaccine during an outbreak, and defunding research "that will leave us woefully unprepared for future pandemics and public health emergencies."
Kennedy has also "packed a critical scientific body, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), with vaccine deniers, completely upending the rigorous scientific process for reviewing and recommending vaccines to the public despite a commitment he made to you that ACIP would be 'maintained without changes,'" the letter continues, citing last week's hepatitis B vote.
"Mr. Chairman: Holding an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy’s ill-conceived actions is more important now than ever," argued Sanders and Democratic Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (Md.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.), Maggie Hassan (NH), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Andy Kim (NJ), Ed Markey (Mass.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), and Patty Murray (Wash.).
"Under Secretary Kennedy;s leadership, over 1,700 people have been infected with measles. Whooping cough cases are surging nationwide, and concerns about a severe flu season continue to grow. Vaccination rates across the country are falling. Children are dying from illnesses that vaccines could have prevented," the senators stressed.
"Secretary Kennedy's response to these crises has been to spread misinformation, end campaigns encouraging flu vaccinations, fire officials who disagree with him, and place individuals with significant conflicts of interest in positions of power—completely undermining Americans' faith in our nation's public health institutions," they wrote.
The senators pointed out that "dozens of scientific and medical groups" have called for Kennedy's resignation or removal, as have more than 1,000 current and former HHS staffers. They also noted a September warning from nine former CDC directors that the secretary "is endangering every American's health," a similar joint statement the following month by ex-surgeons general, and another this month from a dozen previous Food and Drug Administration commissioners.
The letter also references Cassidy's comments about ACIP, the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and Kennedy's supposed commitment during the confirmation process to come before the HELP Committee on a quarterly basis, which hasn't happened.
"Failure to conduct an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy's actions would be an abdication of our responsibility—both from a moral perspective and as a matter of sound public health policy," the letter argues, calling for his testimony as soon as possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Clear Breach': Watchdog Hits FIFA With Ethics Complaint Over Made-Up Trump 'Peace Prize'
Multiple rights organizations have slammed FIFA for giving Trump a "peace prize" given what they describe as his "appalling" human rights record.
Dec 09, 2025
International soccer organization FIFA has now been hit with an ethics complaint over its widely criticized decision to award President Donald Trump its first-ever "FIFA Peace Prize" last week.
The Athletic reported on Monday that FairSquare, a watchdog organization that monitors human rights abuses in the sporting world, filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee alleging that FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly violated the organization's own code of ethics, which states that "all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral... in dealings with government institutions."
The complaint then documents multiple cases in which Infantino allegedly broke the political neutrality pledge, including his public lobbying for Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize; a November interview at the America Business Forum in which Infantino called Trump "a really close friend," and hit back at criticisms that the president had embraced authoritarianism; and Infantino's decision to award Trump with a made-up "peace prize" after failing to help him secure a more prestigious version.
FairSquare zeroed in on Infantino's remarks during the 2026 World Cup draw last week in which he told Trump that "you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it in an incredible way, and you can always count, Mr. President, on my support."
The organization remarked that "any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Infantino’s comments would conclude that he a) encouraged people to support the political agenda of President Trump, and b) expressed his personal approval of President Trump’s political agenda." This was a particularly egregious violation, FairSquare added, because Infantino was "appearing at a public event in his role as FIFA president."
Even without Infantino's gushing remarks about Trump, FairSquare said that "the award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality."
FairSquare isn't the only organization to criticize Trump receiving a "peace prize" from the official governing body behind the World Cup.
Human Rights Watch was quick to blast FIFA last week for giving Trump any sort of peace prize given what it described as the administration’s “appalling” human rights record.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU, also said that Trump was undeserving of the award, and he noted the administration “has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US—including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


