top of page
Search

Why Banning No. 3 Red Dye Actually Hurts Americans

Writer's picture: Chadwick DolgosChadwick Dolgos

The FDA has announced a ban on Erythrosine, or Red No.3, from food and ingestible drugs. While this decision aims to address health concerns, it overlooks significant benefits provided by the dye.


Red No.3, a dye with roots in petroleum, has been a staple in American cuisine for decades, providing not just color but a sense of joy. The FDA's claim that high doses of this dye cause cancer in rats has been met with skepticism.


According to Dr. Miguel Ubrey, chief analyst at the WW Department of Health, "The ban on Red No.3 is like banning water because someone might drown in it. The doses they tested on rats? No human would eat that much unless they had a death wish."


Research has suggested that Red No.3 could be linked to hyperactivity in children, but one could view this as an unexpected advantage.


Dr. Danielle Freeman, principal scientist at the Washington Wick Center for Science in the Public Interest, notes, "In an era where children are increasingly sedentary due to screen time, a little boost in activity from Red No.3 might just be what's needed to get kids off the couch and moving around. Why are we punishing our youth for being a bit more lively?"



Economically, the ban is a disaster. Red No.3 has been a cost-effective solution for food manufacturers, allowing them to offer products at lower prices.


One food industry insider commented, "Red No.3 was our cheapest dye. Now, we'll either hike up prices, find another poison that makes candy appealing to children, or turn all candies into something that looks like Joe Biden on a Delaware beach after 45 minutes."


The bright, cherry-red color of Red No.3 has been synonymous with holiday celebrations, from Valentine's Day hearts to Christmas candy canes.


"This isn't just about food; it's about taking away a piece of our cultural identity. Red has always been the color of love, passion, communism, and festivity. With this ban, we're literally draining the color from our celebrations," states Carl Cox, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, who has been vocal about the complexities of regulating food dyes.


But perhaps the most controversial aspect of this ban is the impact on population control through food. An anonymous FDA official was quoted saying, "If we're honest, a little cancer here and there might just be nature's way of saying we've got too many people. Red No.3 was doing us a favor, keeping the population in check, one hyperactive kid at a time."


One group who has been overlook during this debate is funeral directors. The new ban may potentially extend the lives of children, reducing the growing need for childhood funerals. This has raised concerns for funeral home directors who might see a decline in business.


One funeral director from a small Pennsylvania town shared, "Red dye was our moneymaker. The FDA's ban is going to put us out of business."


As we face a future where our candies are as dull as Jon Stewart's comedy, one can't help but wonder if the FDA isn't just trying to turn our lives into a dull, monochrome existence. Maybe it's time to stock up on red candies while they last, or at least enjoy them with a rebellious smirk, knowing we're defying this absurd ban one bite at a time.


Did you get a laugh out of this article? Show your support for the principles of free speech and stand with Freedom Writers by signing our petition today!


42 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page