Red 3 – also called FD&C Red No. 3, erythrosine or E127 – has been widely used in food, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals since its FDA approval in 1969. You’ve likely encountered Red 3 before. It’s a common additive to many candies, beverages, baked goods, cereals, maraschino cherries and gelatin desserts, as well as certain medications, syrups and cosmetics.

However, mounting scientific evidence suggests that consuming Red 3 poses significant health risks. These risks prompted California to ban its use in food in 2023 and the Food and Drug Administration to ban its use in both food and pharmaceuticals nationwide on Jan. 15, 2025.

As a researcher studying inflammation and cancer, I investigate how synthetic food dyes affect human health. Stricter regulations reflect growing concerns over the negative physiological effects of Red 3 and other synthetic dyes on your body, including causing cancer.

Health risks of Red 3

Over the past 35 years, an increasing amount of scientific evidence has identified the negative health effects of Red 3. While researchers haven’t yet established a direct link between Red 3 and cancer in people, substantial evidence from animal studies points to its carcinogenic potential.

First, Red 3 disrupts thyroid hormone regulation through several mechanisms. It inhibits the thyroid gland’s ability to absorb iodine, a key component for synthesizing thyroid hormones, and blocks an enzyme essential for converting one thyroid hormone to another, contributing to thyroid dysfunction. Along with other impairments in thyroid hormone function, Red 3 increases the risk of thyroid-related disorders.

Second, Red 3 may promote thyroid tumor formation. Several studies exposing rats and pigs to Red 3 observed enlarged tumorous thyroid glands and abnormalities in hormone regulation.

Third, Red 3 can have toxic effects on the brain in multiple ways. Rat studies have found that this synthetic dye increases oxidative stress, which damages tissues, and reduces the antioxidants that control oxidative stress, impairing communication between neurons. Studies in rodents also found that Red 3 triggers neuroinflammation that leads to neuronal damage and dysfunction. Additionally, Red 3 may interact with the amyloid-beta peptides linked to neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease and worsen those conditions.

Regulatory momentum

Red 3 first faced scrutiny in the 1980s when several animal studies linked it to thyroid tumors in male rats. This led to its 1990 ban in cosmetics in the U.S., although its use in food persisted under industry pressure. While the European Union restricted the use of Red 3 to only certain types of processed cherries in 1994, the U.S. has lagged behind.

California’s 2023 ban of Red 3 in foods, effective in 2027, reignited debate on Red 3 and its link to cancer and spurred 24 organizations to advocate for federal action.

This debate culminated in the FDA’s nationwide ban in January 2025. While the FDA cites no direct evidence of Red 3’s carcinogenic effect in people, it acknowledges that animal studies provide sufficient basis for regulatory action. The FDA’s decision aligns with the 1958 Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, mandating a ban on additives shown to cause cancer in humans or animals.

Notably, it took over 35 years from the initial findings of thyroid cancer in rodents to the eventual ban in 2025.

A path forward

The progression from Red 3’s approval to its prohibition highlights the conflict between industrial interests and public health. Continued vigilance over Red 3 could help the nation prioritize consumer safety.

Under the FDA’s mandate, manufacturers must reformulate food products and ingested drugs to leave out Red 3 by January 2027 and January 2028, respectively. While some countries still permit use of Red 3, U.S. imports must meet domestic safety standards. Harmonizing global standards on regulating and evaluating synthetic dyes is essential to protect consumer health.

Several companies selling ultra-processed foods have begun the shift away from synthetic dyes. In 2016, Mars announced plans to remove all artificial colors from its human food products over a five-year period. In 2024, General Mills announced that it would eliminate artificial colors and flavors from its products.

Consumers can protect themselves from Red 3 exposure by reading ingredient labels for “FD&C Red No. 3” or “E127” and choosing products that use natural dyes. Preparing homemade foods with natural color alternatives like beet juice or turmeric is another option. Supporting dye-free brands and staying informed about regulatory changes can further reduce your exposure while promoting safer food practices.

Ongoing research and policy reforms focused on public safety could help ensure that food additives like Red 3 no longer put consumer health at risk.

Lorne J. Hofseth, Professor and Associate Dean for Research, College of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The devastating wildfires in Los Angeles have made one threat very clear: Climate change is undermining the insurance systems American homeowners rely on to protect themselves from catastrophes. This breakdown is starting to become painfully clear as families and communities struggle to rebuild.

But another threat remains less recognized: This collapse could pose a threat to the stability of financial markets well beyond the scope of the fires.

It’s been widely accepted for more than a decade that humanity has three choices when it comes to responding to climate risks: adapt, abate or suffer. As an expert in economics and the environment, I know that some degree of suffering is inevitable — after all, humans have already raised the average global temperature by 1.6 degrees Celsius, or 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s why it’s so important to have functioning insurance markets.

While insurance companies are often cast as villains, when the system works well, insurers play an important role in improving social welfare. When an insurer sets premiums that accurately reflect and communicate risk — what economists call “actuarially fair insurance” — that helps people share risk efficiently, leaving every individual safer and society better off.

But the scale and intensity of the Southern California fires — linked in part to climate change, including record-high global temperatures in 2023 and again in 2024 — has brought a big problem into focus: In a world impacted by increasing climate risk, traditional insurance models no longer apply.

How climate change broke insurance

Historically, the insurance system has worked by relying on experts who study records of past events to estimate how likely it is that a covered event might happen. They then use this information to determine how much to charge a given policyholder. This is called “pricing the risk.”

When Americans try to borrow money to buy a home, they expect that mortgage lenders will make them purchase and maintain a certain level of homeowners insurance coverage, even if they chose to self-insure against unlikely additional losses. But thanks to climate change, risks are increasingly difficult to measure, and costs are increasingly catastrophic. It seems clear to me that a new paradigm is needed.

California provided the beginnings of such a paradigm with its Fair Access to Insurance program, known as FAIR. When it was created in 1968, its authors expected that it would provide insurance coverage for the few owners who were unable to get normal policies because they faced special risks from exposure to unusual weather and local climates.

But the program’s coverage is capped at US$500,000 per property – well below the losses that thousands of Los Angeles residents are experiencing right now. Total losses from the wildfires’ first week alone are estimated to exceed $250 billion.

How insurance could break the economy

This state of affairs isn’t just dangerous for homeowners and communities — it could create widespread financial instability. And it’s not just me making this point. For the past several years, central bankers at home and abroad have raised similar concerns. So let’s talk about the risks of large-scale financial contagion.

Anyone who remembers the Great Recession of 2007-2009 knows that seemingly localized problems can snowball.

In that event, the value of opaque bundles of real estate derivatives collapsed from artificial and unsustainable highs, leaving millions of mortgages around the U.S. “underwater.” These properties were no longer valued above owners’ mortgage liabilities, so their best choice was simply to walk away from the obligation to make their monthly payments.

Lenders were forced to foreclose, often at an enormous loss, and the collapse of real estate markets across the U.S. created a global recession that affected financial stability around the world.

Forewarned by that experience, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board wrote in 2020 that “features of climate change can also increase financial system vulnerabilities.” The central bank noted that uncertainty and disagreement about climate risks can lead to sudden declines in asset values, leaving people and businesses vulnerable.

At that time, the Fed had a specific climate-based example of a not-implausible contagion in mind – global risks from sudden large increases in global sea level rise over something like 20 years. A collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could create such an event, and coastlines around the world would not have enough time to adapt.

The Fed now has another scenario to consider – one that’s not hypothetical.

It recently put U.S. banks through “stress tests” to gauge their vulnerability to climate risks. In these exercises, the Fed asked member banks to respond to hypothetical but not-implausible climate-based contagion scenarios that would threaten the stability of the entire system.

We will now see if the plans borne of those stress tests can work in the face of enormous wildfires burning throughout an urban area that’s also a financial, cultural and entertainment center of the world.

Gary W. Yohe, Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.