FDA phasing out 8 dyes: What are the side effects of red dye 40, yellow dye 5?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to discontinue eight petroleum-based synthetic food dyes from the country's food supply soon. The food dyes that will be phased out are Blue 1, Blue 2, Citrus Red 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference on April 22 that 'Food dye is just a no-brainer. Nobody wants to eat petroleum. Everybody knows there's enough science out there that we know it's terrible for you. It causes health problems but also behavioural problems.'
Claims have been made that food dyes like Red Dye 40 and Yellow Dye 5 can cause serious side effects like cancer, allergies, and also hyperactivity in children.
Studies on food dyes, especially ones like Red Dye 40 (Allura Red), Yellow Dye 5 (Tartrazine), Blue Dye 1 (Brilliant Blue), and Blue Dye 2 (Indigo Carmine) suggest these potential side effects:
- Hyperactivity and Behavioural Problems - There's a link between Red 40 and Yellow 5 and increased hyperactivity, inattentiveness, and restlessness in children, especially those who are sensitive to the dyes.
- Potential Cancer Risks - Extensive studies on animals have linked Red 40 and other dyes like Red 3 to cancer or tumours.
- Allergic Reactions - Few individuals may experience allergic reactions to these dyes, including itching, hives, and even asthma.
- DNA Damage - Red 40 has been shown to cause DNA damage both in vitro and in vivo, potentially contributing to an increased risk of cancer.
The side effects may not be visible to a lot of people. Therefore, these points are to be considered if you're still choosing to consume food products with the aforementioned potentially harmful dyes:
- Individual Sensitivity - Not all children are affected in the same way as some may be more sensitive to the effects of these dyes than others.
- Multiple Dyes - Food often contains mixtures of different dyes, making it difficult to isolate the specific effects of individual dyes.
- Regulatory Issues - The FDA approves a lot of these dyes for use, but there are ongoing concerns about their safety and potential health effects.
- Alternatives - Natural food colouring is always available and can be used as a better alternative to synthetic dyes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
2 drinks a day never hurt? Review of over 100 research papers challenges myth of moderate drinking
The evidence, according to the review paper published on 9 June, remains unclear and inconsistent, especially when it comes to conditions like atrial fibrillation—a type of irregular and often rapid heartbeat that can increase the risk of stroke, heart failure and other heart-related complications. 'Uncertainty remains about the true cardiovascular risk of drinking lightly such as one to two drinks per day,' said the review paper. While past studies have suggested that low to moderate alcohol intake—no more than one or two drinks a day—could protect against certain heart conditions like coronary artery disease or stroke, newer research using advanced methods is calling that idea into question. New Delhi: Two glasses of alcohol a day might not hurt your heart—but they don't help either, with new research suggesting that the 'benefits' of moderate drinking may have been overstated for years. A sweeping scientific review by the American Heart Association, a voluntary organisation dedicated to fighting heart disease and stroke, drawing on more than 100 research papers from across the world, has found that the relationship between alcohol and cardiac health is far more complex than popular wisdom would have you believe. What's more certain is that heavy drinking, including binge drinking or consuming three or more drinks a day, is harmful to cardiovascular health. With limited high-quality data and growing doubts about alcohol's benefits, researchers urge doctors to focus instead on well-established ways to protect the heart: regular exercise, not smoking, and maintaining a healthy weight. 'Considering the level of evidence, it remains unknown whether drinking is part of a healthy lifestyle and therefore clinicians should reinforce healthy lifestyle behaviours,' said the review paper. It looked at liquor consumption in the US, where almost 85 percent of adults have had alcohol at some point in their lives. On average, each American consumes around 2.5 gallons (9.4 litres) of pure alcohol each year. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 (jointly issued by the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services) highlight the need to avoid making definitive health claims about low-level alcohol use amid the continuing uncertainty in evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) too states in The Lancet Public Health that there is no amount of alcohol consumption that is completely safe for health. Further, guidelines on alcohol and health in Canada state that 'less is better' while outlining the health risks linked to varying levels of weekly alcohol consumption. Also Read: Smoking, alcohol & high BMI among biggest risk factors linked to cancer death, says Lancet study Alcohol and stroke risk The review paper pointed to growing evidence that heavy drinking clearly raises the risk for all types of stroke. This includes ischemic stroke (caused by blocked blood flow), intracerebral haemorrhage (bleeding inside the brain), and subarachnoid haemorrhage (bleeding around the brain). Some earlier studies suggested that light to moderate drinking (up to two drinks a day) might slightly reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. But more recent and robust research, including large-scale studies and mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses, challenges that idea, the review paper underlined. One combined study involving around 6,00,000 consumers of alcohol found that even increasing intake by just one drink a day raised the risk of ischemic stroke by 13 percent, with similar increases seen for other types of strokes. As the authors noted in the review: 'Evidence is currently insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and ischemic stroke.' But what's clear is that heavy drinking raises stroke risk across the board, regardless of gender or stroke type. New tools, same challenges The review paper highlighted that most studies on alcohol and heart disease rely on people self-reporting how much they drink—which is often unreliable, especially among heavy drinkers. Measuring alcohol use is tricky, the authors stated, because it varies based on what people drink, how often, how much, whether they have eaten, and personal factors like metabolism. This makes it difficult to draw clear lines between safe and harmful levels of drinking. To improve accuracy, newer studies are using tools like wearable alcohol sensors, urine kits, biomarkers (such as phosphatidylethanol), and smartphone tracking. These methods aim to provide more objective, real-time data on alcohol use. The paper also pointed out that differences in study design—such as how drinking is defined and who is included as a 'non-drinker'—can affect results. For instance, using former drinkers or occasional drinkers as the reference group instead of lifelong abstainers can distort findings. Speaking to ThePrint, Dr Varun Bansal, consultant, cardiothoracic and vascular surgery at Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, agreed that designing a robust study is far from simple. He explained that it would mean giving alcohol to participants who might not even want to drink, while those who do agree may not stick to the same amount consistently. 'So, while research has its role,' he said, 'how to conduct it remains a big challenge. Ideally, it should be a double-blind study comparing people who are more susceptible to alcohol-related heart risks with those who aren't—but that's much easier said than done.' He also said that any reliable study must be multifactorial and based on large data to reduce bias. Besides alcohol and diet, factors like exercise and genetic makeup need to be considered. He pointed out that how active someone is matters too. 'It makes a difference whether a person spends the evening sitting and drinking or staying active. To avoid misleading results, the dataset must be big enough to account for these confounding factors.' (Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui) Also Read: Cancer warning on liquor bottles 'long overdue'. Even 'light', 'moderate' drinking poses threat
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
This drug offers 99.9% protection against HIV, but there's a catch
The US FDA has approved lenacapavir, the first twice-yearly injection for HIV prevention, which provides near-complete protection. However, its cost — ₹24 lakh per shot — may make it inaccessible in India
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Major chocolate recall sweeps U.S stores — here's why your favorite sweet treat might be unsafe
Weaver Nut Company is recalling certain semi-sweet chocolate nonpareils distributed throughout the United States. If you recently purchased semi-sweet chocolate nonpareils from a grocery or retail store, you should double-check the lot number. Major chocolate recall sweeps U.S. stores: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in a news release on Wednesday that Weaver Nut Company was recalling its semi-sweet chocolate nonpareils with white or Christmas-colored seeds, with particular lot codes, due to possible unreported milk allergies, as per a report by Newsweek. Although no illnesses have been reported, people who are allergic to milk face a serious risk. The chocolates were sold through supermarkets and retail stores throughout the United States. ALSO READ: McDonald's boycott June 24: Who's behind it, why it's happening, and how long it will last Why is your favourite sweet treat unsafe? According to the FDA's release, the problem was discovered after a wholesale customer complained about differences in product specifications. Live Events The chocolates were labelled as being free of milk, but later laboratory testing revealed that they did contain milk proteins, it added. It further stated that consuming the affected items could result in severe or fatal allergic reactions for people with a milk allergy or severe sensitivity. One of the top nine allergens that the FDA requires to be declared is milk, and improper labelling can be very risky. Why is this recall important? According to the Pennsylvania-based Weaver Nut Company, the recall is a preventative step to protect the public's health. The business is taking all necessary steps to ensure the safety of its products. Which chocolates are affected? Customers are advised to verify product lot codes and return or dispose of any impacted items. Throw away the items or return them to the store for a complete refund. Lot numbers 204206, 204207, 204208, 204209, 204212, 224225 are for Item 47518-Nonpareil, Semi-Sweet Chocolate (Christmas Seeds). Lot numbers 204214-RL, 204214, 204215, 224221, 224222, 224223, 135215, 135216, 135217, 135220, 135221, 145204, 145205-1, 145207-1, and 145210-1 are for Item D2645, Nonpareils, Semi-Sweet Chocolate (White Seeds), as per a report by Newsweek. FAQs What do I do if I have these chocolates? Check the lot number, and if it is recalled, do not eat it. Return it for a refund or dispose of it. Why is the recall so serious? Milk is a major allergen, and consuming it when allergic can result in serious or life-threatening reactions. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
