Subscribe to The Tonic
Red dye 3 has been in the crosshairs of health advocates for years, flagged for potential links to hyperactivity in children and cancer in animal studies. On paper, banning it seems like progress—a long-overdue move toward making our food supply healthier.
But when you step back, this moment feels less like a triumph and more like a glaring reminder of just how broken our system is.
For starters, it’s hard to ignore how long this took. The FDA has known about the potential risks of red dye 3 for decades, yet it’s only now being removed from our food supply. Instead of being viewed as a proactive step toward public health, the ban has invited criticism about the agency’s notoriously glacial pace.
For many, this feels like a "too little, too late" moment, reinforcing the belief that our health agencies are more reactive than proactive.
To make matters worse, this saga feeds into a larger narrative of mistrust in health agencies. Even with the nuance that much of the cancer concern comes from high-dose studies in rats, the ban doesn’t feel like a sweeping victory. Instead, it highlights the absurdity of a regulatory system that seems more concerned with optics than real, impactful reform.
Let’s also consider the broader context. Red dye 3 is just one ingredient in a much larger problem. Removing it won’t suddenly make ultra-processed foods healthy. Even if your Fruit Loops aren’t as bright red anymore, they are still Fruit Loops. Red dye 3 or not, sugary cereals are still NOT a part of a well-balanced breakfast, regardless of what those 1990s commercials led you to believe.
The American diet remains overwhelmingly dominated by cheap, calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods—products that thrive in a system built to prioritize profit over public health. In many ways, banning a single dye feels like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
Even more ironically, many of the “cleaner” food alternatives that will emerge in the wake of this ban are owned by the same companies that brought us the problematic products in the first place.
It’s a reshuffling of the same playbook, not a revolution. Meanwhile, systemic issues like poor access to fresh food in low-income areas, lackluster school lunch programs, and a healthcare system that barely touches on nutrition remain unaddressed.
The key takeaway? Yes, removing red dye 3 is a step in the right direction. But let’s not pretend it’s a solution. The real work lies in tackling the root causes of our health crisis: a food system that thrives on cheap ingredients and a public health framework that struggles to keep pace. We need bolder moves—better policies, better education, and better infrastructure—to create a healthier future.
So, while it’s good to see progress, let’s keep our eyes on the bigger picture. To me, the food dye conversation is a distraction from the systemic changes we really need. But maybe it is just a small of many bigger steps to come! Here’s to a year of clarity, focus, and meaningful progress—one ingredient and one policy at a time.
Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.
Comments