
The Truth About the Red Dye No. 3 Ban [ A Doctor Explains]
Share
Written by: Vincent Pedre M.D. | January 21, 2024 | Time to read 12 min
Red No. 3, also known as erythrosine, has long been a popular synthetic dye used to give products a vibrant, cherry-red hue. From colorful candies to prescription medications, this dye has been a staple in various industries for decades, except one — cosmetics. The FDA banned Red No. 3 in cosmetics almost 35 years ago. However, growing concerns over its safety in food and drugs have brought it under intense scrutiny. The FDA’s recent bans sets a timeline for its phase-out in the United States, leaving manufacturers and consumers wondering what’s next, because Red No. 3 is not the only synthetic food dye that could be harmful to humans.
In this blog post, we’ll explore everything you need to know about Red No. 3—its history, applications, safety concerns, and what the upcoming ban means for industries and individuals like you and me.
What is Red No. 3?

Red No. 3 is a synthetic dye belonging to the xanthene dye family, derived from coal tar. Its distinct bright red color makes it a popular choice in food, cosmetics , and pharmaceuticals. Yes, pharmaceuticals! Did you ever wonder why those cough syrups are so so red? The very things we trust to heal and protect us might actually be harming us instead.
First approved by the FDA in the mid-20th century, the dye became a go-to additive for enhancing the visual appeal of products. Its appeal lies not just in its vibrant color but also in its stability, which ensures that products maintain their color over time. However, despite its widespread use, Red No. 3 has been controversial for decades due to studies linking it to potential health risks.
Products with Red No. 3 Dye
Red No. 3 can be found in a wide range of consumer products. These include:
-
Foods and Beverages:
Candies such as gummy bears, jelly beans, and licorice
Maraschino cherries
Certain frostings, cake decorations, and baked goods
Processed snacks and cereals targeting children
-
Pharmaceuticals and Over-the-Counter Medications:
Liquid medications, including syrups and suspensions
Coatings on pills and tablets for easier identification
-
Cosmetics and Personal Care Items (prior to 1990) :
Lipsticks and blushes
Nail polishes and other beauty products

Is Red No. 3 Safe or Unsafe?
The safety of Red No. 3 has been a contentious issue for years.
Erythrosine, commonly known as FD&C Red No. 3, is a synthetic red dye with a unique chemical composition that includes iodine, a vital element for thyroid health. Specifically, erythrosine is a tetraiodofluorescein compound, meaning it contains four iodine atoms, which contribute to its vibrant red color and chemical stability. While its iodine content is integral to its structure and functionality, it has raised concerns about potential impacts on thyroid function. Iodine plays a critical role in the synthesis of thyroid hormones, and excessive or imbalanced iodine exposure can disrupt thyroid activity, leading to either an overactive or underactive thyroid.

Other concerns about Red No. 3 impact on human health stem from animal studies that have linked the dye to cancer. Here’s a closer look at the controversy:
Studies and Findings
In the 1980s, research on lab animals revealed a potential link between high doses of Red No. 3 and thyroid tumors. This led to the dye being classified as a carcinogen in certain contexts.
A study found that Red No. 3 has estrogen-like properties and can damage DNA in human breast cancer cells. This suggests it may act as a risk factor in human breast carcinogenesis by promoting growth in estrogen receptor-positive breast cells and inducing DNA damage.
As a result of these findings, the FDA banned its use in cosmetics and externally applied drugs in 1990. However, it remained legal for food and oral medications, as the risk to humans was deemed minimal under typical exposure levels. Really? How about the cumulative effect over time?
Public Perception
Many consumer advocacy groups have long campaigned for a complete ban on Red No. 3, citing these studies and urging manufacturers to adopt safer alternatives. Critics argue that allowing its continued use in consumable products contradicts public health priorities. And why aren’t there more studies? Who would fund those studies? Certainly not the food industry!
Regulatory Response
The FDA’s recent decision to phase out Red No. 3 for food and drugs represents a significant shift, acknowledging lingering safety concerns.

Key Deadlines
In January 2025, the FDA announced a timeline for phasing out Red No. 3 in food products and medications. Here’s what the ban entails:
January 2027:
Manufacturers must eliminate Red No. 3 from all food and beverage products. This includes candies, baked goods, and processed snacks.
January 2028:
The ban extends to prescription and over-the-counter medications, like cough syrups, requiring manufacturers to reformulate or repackage these products without Red No. 3.
Implications for Manufacturers
The argument for the phase-out is unilateral. They reference the challenges posed on industries that rely heavily on Red No. 3:
Food Industry:
Companies will need to find alternative dyes that replicate the vibrant red hue of Red No. 3. Natural colorants like beet juice or carmine may be viable options, though they often come with higher costs and shorter shelf lives.Pharmaceuticals:
Reformulating medications can be complex, as any changes must comply with strict FDA guidelines. This could lead to delays in production and increased costs for manufacturers.Cosmetic Industry:
Although the ban doesn’t directly affect cosmetics, the heightened awareness around Red No. 3 may drive consumers to seek out products that are devoid of other synthetic colorants.
But here’s where they get it wrong:
Alternatives ALREADY exist — The European Ban on Synthetic Dyes
Contrary to the claim that the phase-out poses insurmountable challenges, Europe banned many synthetic dyes, including those similar to Red No. 3, as early as the 1970s. This proactive approach in the European Union has not crippled their industries. Instead, it has spurred innovation and encouraged the adoption of safer, more natural alternatives. For example:
Major European food brands, such as Nestlé and Danone, have successfully reformulated their products to exclude synthetic dyes, opting for natural options like beetroot or turmeric.
The widespread availability of natural colorants has demonstrated that industries can adapt without compromising quality or consumer satisfaction.
Claim: Finding alternatives to Red No. 3 for vibrant red hues will be costly and challenging.
Rebuttal: Alternatives already exist and are widely used. For example:
Beet juice, paprika extract, and carmine are established natural dyes that provide similar red hues without health risks.
Brands like Kraft Heinz and General Mills have removed synthetic dyes from their products in response to consumer demand, proving that cost-effective solutions can be scaled up.
While natural dyes may have shorter shelf lives, improved stabilization techniques have largely mitigated this issue, making them commercially viable.
Claim: Reformulating medications to exclude Red No. 3 is complex, costly, and time-consuming.
Rebuttal: Pharmaceutical companies have historically adapted to regulatory changes. For example:
The removal of mercury-based preservatives from vaccines demonstrates that reformulations are not only possible but can also lead to safer products without disrupting supply chains.
Many medications in Europe and countries with stricter dye regulations already avoid synthetic colorants, showing that compliant formulations are achievable.
How The Ban Affects Us — The Consumers

Price Increases:
Reformulating products may lead to higher prices as companies invest in research and development of alternatives. Natural alternatives cost 10-30% more than Red No. 3. Reformulation costs may drive 2-5% price increases in affected foods, but this may be temporary as the market adapts.
Buying Behavior:
Are you really buying these foods to begin with? These are the top categories of foods that can have a negative impact on our health, because the impact of this ban primarily hits candies, cereals, and artificial drinks like sports drinks.
Transparency:
The ban is expected to drive greater transparency in ingredient labeling, empowering consumers to make informed choices. You should be reading labels anyway and question consuming any ingredients you can’t pronounce or don’t know what they are. Look for natural dye alternatives like beetroot extract.
Why Does This Matter?
Let’s face it—when it comes to synthetic dyes like Red No. 3, it’s not just about a splash of color. It’s about the potential risks hiding in plain sight. Red No. 3 has been under scrutiny for decades, yet we’ve allowed it to linger in our food, candies, and medications for far too long. C’mon FDA, seriously? If there’s enough evidence to mandate a phase-out, why give manufacturers years to comply? Meanwhile, other harmful additives are pulled off the market immediately. The inconsistency is frustrating, to say the least.
This is a wake-up call. Consumers are demanding better—cleaner, safer products without the risks associated with synthetic additives. We have the science, and we know the risks. It’s time to act like it. The movement to reduce harmful ingredients is gaining traction with movements like #MAHA (“Make America Healthy Again”), but we need stronger, faster action to prioritize public health. This should not be about politics — it should be about what’s best for our health.
8 Simple Tips to Avoid Harmful Dyes
Making better choices about what you eat doesn’t have to be complicated. Here are some practical ways to eliminate Red No. 3 and other harmful dyes from your diet while setting yourself up for a healthier, longer life:
Read Ingredient Labels Religiously: Look beyond the marketing on the front of the package and scan the ingredient list. Avoid products with artificial colorings like Red No. 3 (often listed as FD&C Red No. 3) or any “Red,” “Yellow,” or “Blue” dyes followed by a number.
Choose Whole, Unprocessed Foods: The easiest way to avoid synthetic dyes is to focus on fresh, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and lean proteins. These naturally colorful options don’t rely on artificial additives to look appealing.
Opt for Natural Color Alternatives: Seek out brands that use natural dyes derived from beet juice, turmeric, spirulina, or paprika extract. Many companies are switching to these safer options in response to consumer demand.
Avoid Brightly Colored Processed Foods: Bright red candies, cereals, frostings, and snack foods are common culprits. If a food looks unnaturally vibrant, it’s likely loaded with artificial colors.
Go Organic When Possible: Organic food standards prohibit the use of synthetic dyes, so choosing organic snacks, cereals, and packaged goods is a simple way to avoid these harmful additives.
Make Your Own Treats: Homemade baked goods, snacks, and even beverages can be just as fun and flavorful without the artificial colors. Use fruits like strawberries, raspberries, or blueberries to add natural color and sweetness.
Drink Smarter: Many sports drinks, sodas, and flavored waters contain synthetic dyes. Choose water, herbal teas, or naturally infused drinks instead, and steer clear of brightly colored beverages.
Be a Savvy Advocate for Your Health: Look for transparency in the brands you support. Many companies now highlight “no artificial colors or dyes” on their packaging, making it easier to shop smart.
By making these small but impactful changes, you’ll not only avoid harmful additives like Red No. 3 but also support a diet that enhances your long-term health, reduces your cancer risk, and boosts your overall vitality. Every meal is a chance to take a step closer to a healthier, brighter future!
What’s Next for Red No. 3?
Here’s the deal: the clock is ticking for manufacturers to say goodbye to Red No. 3 by 2027 in foods and candies, and 2028 for prescription and OTC drugs, but let’s be real—this transition should have happened yesterday. The dye’s risks aren’t new, and yet we’re dragging our feet to make changes. It’s time for manufacturers to step up and for regulatory agencies to hold them accountable. Alternatives already exist.
For you, the consumer, this shift is a chance to take control. Become aware. Don’t purchase products without reading labels. Vote with your wallets — the most powerful way to send a message! Look for products that are free from synthetic dyes and embrace brands that prioritize transparency and safety. Natural alternatives are already out there, and the more we demand them, the faster we’ll see real change. Let me know in the comments below if you’d like me to write a follow-up post with alternatives to products with Red No. 3.
Conclusion
Red No. 3 has had its time in the spotlight, but it’s time to say goodbye. With mounting evidence of its potential risks—ranging from thyroid disruption to potential breast cancer risk to long-term health concerns—it’s clear that this synthetic dye doesn’t belong in our food, medications, or cosmetics.
But let’s call it like it is: this phase-out is long overdue. While we’re glad to see the FDA taking action, the drawn-out timeline feels like a half-measure when immediate action is warranted. Plus, it could always be delayed. It sounds like the FDA is buying time for their cronies in the industry. We deserve better.
As we move toward cleaner, safer products, remember—you have the power to make informed choices. Red No. 3’s phase-out is a victory, but it’s also a reminder to stay vigilant, demand transparency, and hold industries accountable. Together, we can push for a future where science and advocacy drive meaningful change to protect our health. Let’s not wait another three decades to clean up our products.
