I'm confused. This is notice from the FDA that the additive will no longer be permitted. It then goes on to explain why it's perfectly fine to permit it....

The petition requested the agency review whether the Delaney Clause applied and cited, among other data and information, two studies that showed cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3 due to a rat specific hormonal mechanism. The way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans. Relevant exposure levels to FD&C Red No. 3 for humans are typically much lower than those that cause the effects shown in male rats. Studies in other animals and in humans did not show these effects; claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information.

This is what we've decided to do and this is why that decision doesn't make any sense. More at 11.

[–] lewdian69 66 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

From the very first sentence. "The FDA is revoking the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 as a matter of law, based on the Delaney Clause "

From the next paragraph after your quote, emphasis mine.

"The Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals. "

Perhaps we don't agree with the Delaney Clause or think the FDA should not have a role in protecting animals, but they are the regulatory body for human and animal food, and by removing this dye from all food helps prevent animals from accidental ingestion.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ah, that's the bit I missed 'or animals'.

Without that it just sounds like they're arguing against themselves.

[–] lewdian69 3 points 1 day ago

I mean, it still sounds like they are arguing against themselves even with the 'or animals' to be fair.

[–] EtherWhack 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It sorta sounds reminiscent of MSG, in that they gave rats an excessive amount until it finally caused genetic damage.

I don't disagree with using natural and benign colorants (or even none at all), but this almost borders on dishonesty by tricking the ill-informed which can trigger a backlash of even more distrust.

[–] lewdian69 10 points 1 day ago

Just not as overtly racist as attitudes to MSG.