Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, and Red Dye Number 3

Senator Tommy Tuberville was almost certainly wrong

On Wednesday, I watched the senate confirmation hearing for Jay Bhattacharya, who was nominated by the Trump administration to be director of the National Institutes of Health.

On Thursday, I watched the senate confirmation hearing for Marty Makary, who was nominated by the Trump administration to be director of the Food and Drug Administration.

During Makary’s hearing, the topic turned to food coloring. One question came from Senator Tommy Tuberville (R, AL) and it went something like this.

Red dye no. 3 isn’t allowed in cosmetics because it causes cancer and it was just recently banned in foods by the FDA. Europe is way ahead of us because red dye hasn’t been allowed there for years. Why has it taken us so long and why have food manufacturers been given so much time to develop foods without that dangerous dye? Are we simply willing to kill more people in the meantime?

My ears perked up because I’ve written about FD&C Red No. 3 before. As I wrote here, the FDA’s press release on FD&C Red No. 3 was illuminating for explaining why the fear of red dye is overblown: the cancer that red dye gives male rats in laboratory experiments does not apply to humans and the laboratory experiments showed that male rats given lower doses—doses closer to normal human exposure—caused no cancer.

The FDA concluded: “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.” In other words, the ban the FDA was pressured into enacting wasn’t based on science, it was based on fear.

In advocating a ban on red dye, Tuberville made a number of rickety assumptions.

First, he assumed that we do know that this dye causes cancer when used topically as a cosmetic.

Second, he assumed that we do know that this dye causes cancer when ingested as a food.

Third, he assumed that the risks of this dye outweigh the benefits.

Fourth, he asserted that the reasonable solution would be an outright ban.

Fifth, he assumed that, since we should prohibit red dye completely, and Europe already has done so, that Europe is ahead of us.

The central problem with Senator Tuberville’s statement is one of certainty. He was certain that red dye causes cancer. He was certain that the risks of red dye outweigh the benefits for all Americans. He was certain that the best solution is an outright ban.

He was certain. And yet he was almost certainly wrong.

For him to be right, his first four assumptions all had to be right.

Based on the evidence I’ve seen, we don’t have any proof that red dye no. 3 increases the risk of cancer. Remember, even if it increases the risk of cancer, the increased risk will likely be very small.

To make good decisions about our health, we must consider the risks and benefits of certain foods and cosmetics and then make tradeoffs between those risks and benefits. We don’t live risk-free lives. The cars we drive slightly increase our risk of death each time we enter a roadway. Eating at restaurants slightly increases our risk of food-borne illnesses.

Even with perfect information, one person might choose to cease eating foods with red dye while another person might judge the benefits to be greater than the risks. Remember, food companies don’t want to poison their customers and people don’t want to eat toxic food. If FD&C Red No. 3 stays on the market, it will be because some products really benefit from it, the dose is small, the increased risk is tiny, and some customers ultimately prefer it. The preferences of those companies and those customers will show that an outright ban negatively affects at least some Americans.

A governmental one-size-fits-all solution—a ban—will likely make some of us worse off and none of us better off. The person who has decided to avoid red dye will be no worse off with the ban, except that her taxes will be used to pay for the ban. The person who has decided to continue consuming red dye will be worse off, according to his preferences and his finances, recognizing that his taxes were used to prohibit him from using a product he wanted to use.

If European countries made a wise decision to ban red dye, they are ahead of us in a good way. If they made an unwise decision to ban red dye, they are ahead of us in a bad way and can serve a precautionary role.

Tuberville was almost certainly wrong about FD&C Red No. 3.