01/15/25 - The News

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

US Bans Controversial Red Food Dye, Decades After Scientists Raised Alarm

January 15, 2025 0

 Outgoing US President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday announced a ban on Red Dye No 3, a controversial food and drug coloring long known to cause cancer in animals.


Decades after scientific evidence first raised alarm, Red 3, as it is also called, is currently used in nearly 3,000 food products in the United States, according to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

"FDA is revoking the authorized uses in food and ingested drugs of FD&C Red No 3 in the color additive regulations," said a document from the Department of Health and Human Services, published in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The decision stems from a petition filed in November 2022 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and other advocacy groups, which cited the "Delaney Clause" -- a provision mandating the prohibition of any color additive shown to cause cancer in humans or animals.

Notably, the FDA determined as early as 1990 that Red 3 should be banned in cosmetics because of its link to thyroid cancer in male rats.

However, the additive continued to be used in foods, largely due to resistance from the food industry. Manufacturers of maraschino cherries, for example, relied on Red 3 to maintain the iconic red hue of their products.

It's also present in thousands of candies, snacks and fruit products -- and thousands of medicines, according to a search of a government-run database, DailyMed.

"Manufacturers who use FD&C Red No 3 in food and ingested drugs will have until January 15, 2027, or January 18, 2028, respectively, to reformulate their product," the FDA said.

Although the agency acknowledged a cancer link in rats, it maintained that the available evidence does not support such a link in humans, citing differences in hormonal mechanisms between the species and significantly lower exposure levels in people.

While the FDA determination focused on carcinogenicity, other research has also found potential neurobehavioral effects of synthetic food dyes on children, notably Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

The body of evidence from human studies indicates that synthetic food dyes are associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children, and that children vary in their sensitivity to synthetic food dyes," a California government report found in 2021.

Animal studies indicated that synthetic food dyes caused changes in neurotransmitter systems in the brain and produced microscopic changes in brain structure, affecting activity, memory and learning.

The United States has been slow to act on Red 3 compared to other major economies. The European Union banned its use in 1994, with similar prohibitions enacted in Japan, China, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

CSPI hailed the FDA's decision as long overdue and expressed hope that it would pave the way for broader action on other harmful chemicals in food.

"They don't add any nutritional value, they don't preserve the food -- they're just there to make food look pretty," Thomas Galligan, a scientist with CSPI, told AFP.

There's growing discussion across the political spectrum about food additives and chemicals, which reflects ongoing failures by the FDA."

The nonprofit called on the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump to take further steps to protect consumers, including setting stricter limits on heavy metals like lead, arsenic and cadmium, in foods consumed by children.


Read More

Democrats disappoint yet again at Hegseth confirmation hearing

January 15, 2025 0

 If Senate Democrats’ uncoordinated performance at Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday is a sign of things to come, Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks can breathe easy.


Hegseth breezed through the bulk of the four-hour hearing, most of which he spent talking over Democrats who quietly waited for the “Fox and Friends” host to finish his monologues. Only a few lawmakers tried pushing back on Hegseth’s motor-mouthing, among them Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Maizie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). But Hegseth, a veteran broadcaster accustomed to combative interviews, knew better than to take the bait.

If Hegseth’s goal was to be uneventful, he largely succeeded. But if Hegseth’s text was flat by design, his subtext was anything but. Time and again, Hegseth revealed himself to be a hard-line Republican partisan with big ideas and little practical understanding of America’s most important government department.  

Luckily for Hegseth, today’s Republican Party doesn’t view incompetence as a disqualifying factor.

Hegseth’s years at Fox News have evidently resulted in his mastery of the language of right-wing grievance. He ranted about the dangers of “electric tanks” and peppered his responses with condemnations of the “woke military.” He pledged to “tear out DEI and CRT initiatives root and branch” from the Defense Department and rattled a verbal saber at “Communist China.”

Hegseth’s responses brought all the energy of his Fox News segments — and were clearly intended for an audience of one watching from Mar-a-Lago.

But drill down past the superficial outrage, and Hegseth has nothing. Given three chances by Duckworth to name a country involved in ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Hegseth couldn’t name one. That’s especially concerning given that Hegseth had just finished a canned response about how supporting ASEAN will be critical for countering China’s growing influence in the Pacific. Whoops!  

It wasn’t just Democrats who tripped Hegseth up, either. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) asked Hegseth a straightforward question about whether America could fight a multi-front war against “near-peer adversaries” like Russia and China. That’s the kind of technical question a Secretary of Defense will face on a regular basis. Yet Hegseth had no answer. Instead of engaging any part of Rounds’s question, Hegseth instead offered another round of praise for Trump’s strength as a leader.

How Hegseth prepared for his hearing offers valuable insight into how the political dynamic has changed under a restored Trump. Despite pledging to serve “both Republicans and Democrats” if confirmed, Hegseth’s team refused to meet with a single Democratic lawmaker in the run-up to Tuesday’s hearing. When Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) asked why Hegseth had refused his multiple requests to meet, Hegseth dismissively replied that “schedules fill up.” 

It didn’t take Hegseth long to dispense with his poetic commitment to bipartisanship. In his first response, he blamed shadowy forces on the left for a string of media stories about his workplace misconduct and alleged sexual assault. “Our left wing media … doesn’t care about the truth,” Hegseth said. “They want to destroy me because I’m a change agent and a threat to them.”  

Gone also is the tradition of nominees racing to the center in an effort to appear palatable to both sides. In a pointed back-and-forth with Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), Hegseth refused to offer his unequivocal support for the Geneva Conventions, specifically their restrictions on torture. In one of his few direct responses of the day, Hegseth asserted that the Geneva Conventions and other laws written by people in “air-conditioned offices” hinder America’s ability to prosecute warfare.

Hegseth also took a stab at explaining his having sought pardons for convicted American war criminals — something that might have aroused skepticism from Republicans in another political reality. Arguing that in cases of war crimes he always “defaults to the warfighter,” Hegseth made no excuses for seeking pardons for those convicted by the military of human rights abuses. That outrageous answer didn’t even merit a follow-up from Democrats. 

Despite his claim early in the day that politics should play “no role” in the military, Hegseth’s fixation on rooting out DEICRT and other “progressive” politics from the Pentagon tells a different story. Like many of his MAGA kin, Hegseth sees liberal demons behind every door and feels a moral obligation to root them out. That those demons are entirely imaginary doesn’t seem to matter.

Hegseth is resolutely unqualified to be secretary of Defense, but Democrats’ uninspiring questioning did a dreadful job of showcasing that fact for the public. Hegseth is now on track for a Senate confirmation that would have seemed outlandish even a month ago. If that happens, America’s fighting men and women will be in for a wild ride.     

Read More