<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>BannedFoods.net &#187; Food Dyes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bannedfoods.net/category/food-dyes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bannedfoods.net</link>
	<description>Keeping Track of Banned or Dangerous Foods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:38:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Melamine may be in cocoa products, Topaz Brand Wafer Rolls (May be in Big Lots)</title>
		<link>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/20/melamine-may-be-in-cocoa-products-topaz-brand-wafer-rolls-may-be-in-big-lots/</link>
		<comments>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/20/melamine-may-be-in-cocoa-products-topaz-brand-wafer-rolls-may-be-in-big-lots/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[BPA,Bishenol A]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banned Foods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China Product Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Foods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Dyes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Melamine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Red Dye 1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.A and Melamine Scare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[What it is?]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holiday food safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big lots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cocoa recall melamine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[melamine recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[topaz brand wafer rolls melamine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bannedfoods.net/?p=263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[_Dorsey Marketing Inc. is recalling G&#038;J Gourmet Market cocoa products because they might contain melamine, a chemical used in plastics and not approved to be directly added to food in the U.S. No illnesses have been reported, according to the company, based in Saint-Laurent, Quebec.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recalls: cocoa products, Topaz brand Wafer Rolls<br />
<code><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 468x15, created 12/20/08 */
google_ad_slot = "0421267376";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 15;
//-->
</script><br />
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></p>
<p><strong> The following recalls have been announced:</strong></p>
<p>_Dorsey Marketing Inc. is recalling G&amp;J Gourmet Market cocoa products because they might contain melamine, a chemical used in plastics and not approved to be directly added to food in the U.S. No illnesses have been reported, according to the company, based in Saint-Laurent, Quebec. The recalled products include G&amp;J Hot Cocoa Stuffer, item 120144; G&amp;J His and Hers Hot Cocoa Set, item 120129; G&amp;J Cocoa item, item 120126, sold in French Vanilla Cocoa and Double Chocolate Cocoa flavors. The recalled products were imported into the United States by the company. They were distributed nationwide to Big Lots during the weeks of Sept. 22 and Sept. 29 this year and to Shopko during the week of Oct. 6. For more information, consumers can e-mail the company: recall(at)dmi-global.com.</p>
<!-- AdSense Now! V1.83 -->
<!-- Post[count: 1] -->
<div class="adsense adsense-midtext" style="float:left;margin: 12px;"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 300x250, created 1/10/10 */
google_ad_slot = "5209442572";
google_ad_width = 300;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div><p>_National Brands Inc. is recalling all its 4.76-ounce and 12.3-ounce cans of Topaz brand Wafer Rolls because the products might be contaminated with melamine. No illnesses have been reported, according to the Spring Valley, N.Y., company. The recalled products were sold in four flavors and they were distributed nationwide through retail stores. For more information, consumers can call 866-238-5201.</p>
<p><!-- QUIGO --> <!-- QUIGO --><em><br />
</em></p>
<p></span></p>
<!-- AdSense Now! V1.83 -->
<!-- Post[count: 2] -->
<div class="adsense adsense-leadout" style="float:left;margin: 12px;"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 300x250, created 1/10/10 */
google_ad_slot = "5209442572";
google_ad_width = 300;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/20/melamine-may-be-in-cocoa-products-topaz-brand-wafer-rolls-may-be-in-big-lots/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kimchi from China banned in Korea due to unsafe additives.</title>
		<link>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/07/kimchi-from-china-banned-in-korea-due-to-unsafe-additives/</link>
		<comments>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/07/kimchi-from-china-banned-in-korea-due-to-unsafe-additives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banned Foods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China Product Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Dyes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bannedfoods.net/?p=242</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SOUTH Korea has declared a rising volume of Chinese imported kimchi, or spicy fermented cabbage, to be inedible due to banned or harmful additives found in i]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- AdSense Now! V1.83 -->
<!-- Post[count: 3] -->
<div class="adsense adsense-midtext" style="float:left;margin: 12px;"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 300x250, created 1/10/10 */
google_ad_slot = "5209442572";
google_ad_width = 300;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div><p>Update(06/10/2008): SOUTH Korea has declared a rising volume of Chinese imported kimchi, or spicy fermented cabbage, to be inedible due to banned or harmful additives found in it. The Korea Food and Drug Administration told parliament it blocked 1,637 tonnes of Chinese-made kimchi due to food safety concerns last year. The kimchi shipments were found to have ‘inedible’ additives such as cancer-causing artificial sweeteners or banned colourings, the food and drug agency said.<code><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 468x15, created 12/7/08 */
google_ad_slot = "3416320564";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 15;
//-->
</script><br />
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/07/kimchi-from-china-banned-in-korea-due-to-unsafe-additives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Red Dye No 3 and other dyes, are they safe?</title>
		<link>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/07/reddye-no-3-and-other-dyes-are-they-safe/</link>
		<comments>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/07/reddye-no-3-and-other-dyes-are-they-safe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:49:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Food Dyes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Is it Safe?]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[and Red 40]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blue 1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blue 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[color additives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food dye safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orange no 1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Red 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[red dye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[red dye 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[red dye 40]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[synthetic food dyes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yellow 5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yellow 6]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bannedfoods.net/?p=229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What dyes are safe in your food and cosmetics?
Do they cause cancer and behavioral problems in children?
What foods are they in?
We tell it all here,]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Red Dyes in Food, are they safe? Should they be banned?</p>
<p><a title="Research on dyes in foods, banned or safe?" href="http://www.feingold.org/Research/dyesinfood.html" target="_self"></a><br />
Red Dye # 40 has been linked unofficially to some behavioral problems with young children.<br />
Red dye No. 40 is found in hundreds of foods, including Twizzlers, Doritos, Twinkies, chocolate cake mix, vanilla frosting and crosissants.<br />
This is a great site about red dyes and the history of what is going on with dyes in general.</p>
<p>Click <a title="Research on dyes in foods, banned or safe?" href="http://www.feingold.org/Research/dyesinfood.html" target="_self">here to read more.</a></p>
<p>Note: This is an older article and oddly enough when I researched red dye 3, I could not find any new info as far as it being banned. The FDA apparently tried to ban it at one point and failed.</p>
<p>Red No. 3 and Other Colorful Controversies<br />
by Dale Blumenthal</p>
<p>The lure of red cherries in canned fruit cocktail is legendary in many<br />
American families.  Siblings fight over them, parents use them to bribe or<br />
treat their children, and even adults count the cherries spooned into their<br />
dessert.  But, the days of the fruit cocktail cherry colored by FD&amp;C Red No. 3<br />
may be numbered.  Because large amounts of the color have been shown to cause<br />
cancer in rats, FDA recently ended certain uses of FD&amp;C Red No. 3 and plans to<br />
end the remaining uses.  The cherries in 21st century fruit cocktail could<br />
well be light brown.<br />
<code><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 468x15, created 12/7/08 */
google_ad_slot = "3416320564";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 15;
// --></script><br />
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript"></script></code></p>
<p>Color has long been recognized as important in consumer acceptance of nearly<br />
 every food, medication and cosmetic product.  Even the hue of the containers<br />
 can make the difference between a best seller and a &#8220;no-sale-er.&#8221;</p>
<p>A research project in the 1970s, reported in the October 1973 issue of<br />
 Marketing, illustrated just how big the impact of color can be on the<br />
 acceptance of food items in particular.  Research volunteers were served a<br />
 meal of steak, peas and French fries.  They ate part of the meal under special<br />
 lighting that concealed the fact that the colors of the food had been<br />
 altered.  When, under normal lighting, the test group discovered that their<br />
 steaks were blue, peas red, and french fries green, some participants became<br />
 ill at the sight of the unnaturally colored food they had been eating.</p>
<p>Color Safety</p>
<p>Food once was colored only with natural dyes.  Beets, peppers, grape skins,<br />
 saffron, and even brilliantly scarlet extracts prepared from dried bodies of<br />
 cochineal insects lent their distinctive colors to the cook&#8217;s creativity.</p>
<p>By the 19th century, colors derived from other chemicals came into use&#8211;with<br />
 sometimes serious health consequences (see &#8220;Additives for Eye Appeal&#8221; in the<br />
 July-August 1973 issue of FDA Consumer).  Lead chromate and copper sulfate<br />
 began to be used to tint candy and pickles.  Arsenic and other poisonous<br />
 impurities were added when mixing up new color additives.  Dyes made from<br />
 coal-tar and petroleum derivatives also appeared in foods, drugs and cosmetics.</p>
<p>How, then, can a consumer be sure that the bright primary colors and the<br />
 subtle shadings that color many consumer products today are safe to eat, use<br />
 in drugs, put on skin or hair, or&#8211;as with colored contact lenses&#8211;stick in<br />
 the eyes?  A monitoring process&#8211;directed by FDA and refined over several<br />
 decades&#8211;ensures that this is so.</p>
<p>FDA began a comprehensive assessment of the safety of color additives with the<br />
 passage of the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906.  The country had changed from<br />
 an agricultural to an industrial nation.  No longer did most Americans live on<br />
 farms and produce their own food.  Instead, much of the food a nation of city<br />
 dwellers ate was processed, chemically preserved, and marketed by large firms<br />
 competing for consumers&#8217; attention.</p>
<p>It was a time of triumph for synthetic dyes, followed by concern on the part<br />
 of public health officials about the safety of these dyes.  Harvey Wiley,<br />
 chief of USDA&#8217;s Bureau of Chemistry, challenged the ease with which<br />
 manufacturers added chemicals to food.  Food safety became Wiley&#8217;s special<br />
 cause, and he was instrumental in bringing about passage of the first federal<br />
 Food and Drugs Act in 1906.</p>
<p>This landmark food law prohibited the use of any color additive in foods if<br />
 the color would deceive the consumer, conceal inferiority or damage, or<br />
 otherwise result in misbranding and adulteration.  However, Wiley believed<br />
 that the use of color additives in food required further investigation.  He<br />
 hired an outside consultant, dye expert Bernard Hesse, Ph.D., to study the<br />
 problem.</p>
<p>After reviewing 80 of the most commonly used colors, many of which had never<br />
 been tested before, Hesse recommended only seven color additives as safe for<br />
 use in food.  His recommendation was announced in a 1907 regulation, Food<br />
 Inspection Decision 76, which also introduced a system for voluntary<br />
 certification of synthetic food colors.</p>
<p>Pre-Market Approval</p>
<p>The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 elaborated on the earlier<br />
 regulations by providing for the listing and mandatory certification of<br />
 synthetic color additives used in foods, drugs and cosmetics.  During the<br />
 1950s, a safety concern associated with the improper use of FDC&#8217;s Orange No. 1<br />
 prompted additional safety studies on color additives used in food, including<br />
 FDC&#8217;s Red No. 3.</p>
<p>Then, in 1960, Congress amended the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to<br />
 set up a pre-market approval system for new color additives and to require<br />
 demonstration of the safety of color additives already in use.</p>
<p>Approved color additives were divided into two groups:  those requiring FDA&#8217;s<br />
 certification (synthetic dyes made mostly from coal tar and petroleum<br />
 derivatives) and those exempt from FDA&#8217;s certification (substances derived<br />
 from vegetable, animal or mineral products).  Each batch of a synthetic color<br />
 is tested by the manufacturer and a sample submitted to FDA for certification<br />
 according to specifications in the Code of Federal Regulations.  Colors exempt<br />
 from batch certification must also meet specifications in the CFR.</p>
<p>The 1960 amendments placed the color additives already in use on a provisional<br />
 list to permit their continued use while the manufacturers developed the<br />
 necessary data for a petition to support the listing of the color additive.</p>
<p>Many of the color additives requiring certification come in two forms:<br />
 straight colors and lakes.  Straight colors in many cases are water-soluble<br />
 dyes.  Certain straight colors are used to make &#8220;lakes&#8221; or water-insoluble<br />
 forms of the color additive.  Lakes are used in products in which leaching or<br />
 &#8220;bleeding&#8221; of color would pose problems, such as in cookie fillings, coated<br />
 tablets, candies, chewing gum, and lipsticks.  The agency is currently<br />
 planning a proposal regarding the regulation of lakes.<code><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 468x15, created 12/7/08 */
google_ad_slot = "3416320564";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 15;
// --></script><br />
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript"></script></code></p>
<p>Manufacturers seeking approval for new color additives or for those on the<br />
 provisional list were required to submit a petition to FDA with scientific<br />
 data demonstrating that a specific color was safe for its intended uses.  If<br />
 the agency approved the petition, the color was placed on a &#8220;permanent&#8221;<br />
 listing.  Colors can be approved for use in food, drugs, and cosmetics (FDC),<br />
 in drugs and cosmetics only , or specifically for external drug and<br />
 cosmetic use .</p>
<p>To date, of the original 200 provisionally listed color additives, 90 have<br />
 been listed as safe and the rest have either been withdrawn by industry or<br />
 delisted by FDA.</p>
<p>FD&amp;C Red No. 3</p>
<p>FDA terminated the provisional listings for FD&amp;C Red No. 3 on Jan. 29, 1990,<br />
 at the conclusion of its review of the 200 straight colors on the 1960<br />
 provisional list.  Commonly called erythrosine, FD&amp;C Red No. 3 is a tint that<br />
 imparts a watermelon-red color and was one of the original seven colors on<br />
 Hesse&#8217;s list.</p>
<p>The provisionally listed uses that were recently terminated include use of the<br />
 straight color in cosmetics and externally applied drugs and all uses of the<br />
 lakes of FD&amp;C Red No. 3.</p>
<p>The case of FDC Red No. 3, however, presents what one individual familiar<br />
 with color regulation calls a &#8220;regulatory inconsistency.&#8221;  Although the<br />
 provisional uses (about one-third of its uses) are now banned, FDC Red No. 3<br />
 is still permanently listed for use in ingested drugs and food, such as baked<br />
 goods, cherries, dairy products, desserts, dietary supplements, food<br />
 seasonings, jellies, jams, and vegetable products.</p>
<p>This paradox came about because of improvements in scientific methods and the<br />
 timing of the petitioner&#8217;s submission for permanently listing the food and<br />
 ingested drug uses.  After the 1960 provisional listings, studies were<br />
 performed on FDC Red No. 3.  Results did not show any safety concerns, and in<br />
 response to a petition by the Certified Color Manufacturers Association<br />
 (CCMA), FDC Red No. 3 was permanently listed for use in ingested drugs and<br />
 foods in June 1969.<br />
<code><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-3095193421743727";
/* 250x250, created 12/7/08 */
google_ad_slot = "4805983347";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script><br />
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></p>
<p>Cosmetic and externally applied drug uses of the color remained provisionally<br />
listed while studies on skin exposure were conducted.  Meanwhile, FDA expanded<br />
its safety requirements in 1977 to include more extensive studies on<br />
provisionally listed color additives.  Based upon the results of new studies<br />
on FDC Red No. 3, conducted by the International Research Development<br />
Corporation and completed in 1982, the agency concluded that FDC Red No. 3<br />
causes thyroid cancer in male rats.</p>
<p>The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association and CCMA argued that no<br />
direct cancer-causing effect was seen in animals given the color in the low<br />
levels used in consumer goods.  FDA, however, decided that the evidence of<br />
thyroid tumors in rats was clear, and that the additional research cited by<br />
industry did not establish that an indirect mechanism--such as a hormonal<br />
effect triggered by the dye--caused the tumors, rather than the dye itself.<br />
Thus, FDA denied the manufacturers' petition for further permanent listings of<br />
the color.  Based on data from the studies, the agency estimated that the<br />
lifetime risk of thyroid tumors in humans was at most 1 in 100,000.</p>
<p>Like FDC Red No. 3, FDC Blue No. 1 and FDC Yellow No. 5 were also<br />
permanently listed for food and ingested drug uses in 1969.  When FDA reviewed<br />
new, more extensive studies on FDC Blue No. 1 and FDC Yellow No. 5, the<br />
agency found that these two color additives did not cause cancer in animal<br />
studies.  (But, since FDC Yellow No. 5 causes allergic reactions in some<br />
people, FDA requires its listing on food labels.)</p>
<p>As experts note, while the provisional listings for straight colors have<br />
ended, advances in science will require continual monitoring of the safety of<br />
color additives.</p>
<p>Delaney Dilemma</p>
<p>The decision to ban the provisional uses of FDC Red No. 3 is based on the<br />
Delaney Clause of the 1960 Color Additive Amendments.  Under that clause, FDA<br />
cannot approve color additives shown to induce cancer in humans or animals in<br />
any amount.</p>
<p>Many government officials, however, believe that the inflexibility of the<br />
Delaney Clause should be replaced by a standard that allows for what may be an<br />
insignificant cancer risk.  Advances in technology and the ability to detect<br />
minute quantities of cancer-causing chemicals in foods may make the risk<br />
standard of the Delaney Clause unnecessarily stringent in some cases.  In<br />
announcing the decision to terminate the provisional uses of FD&amp;C Red No. 3,<br />
Health and Human Services Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., said that the<br />
decision to ban the uses of Red No. 3 was not based on risk but on the legal<br />
mandate of the Delaney Clause.</p>
<p>In 1986, FDA took a different approach in approving four cosmetic dyes for<br />
which cancer risk was trivial.  The agency based its approval of Orange<br />
No. 17, FDC Red No. 19, and  Red Nos. 8 and 9 on the legal maxim "de<br />
minimis non curat lex," meaning that the law does not concern itself with<br />
trifles.  A government review panel had assessed the worst-case risks for<br />
externally applied drug and cosmetic uses for D&amp;C Orange No. 17 as 1 in 19<br />
billion (that is, exposure to external cosmetics containing FDC Orange No. 17<br />
may cause at most one additional case of cancer in 19 billion people over a<br />
70-year lifetime of exposure) and for FDC Red No. 19 as 1 in 9 million.  The<br />
maximum possible cancer risk for D&amp;C Red Nos. 8 and 9 was evaluated as 1 in 60<br />
million.</p>
<p>The next year, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia<br />
held that the Delaney Clause does not contain an exemption for cancer-causing<br />
color additives with only trivial risks.  Thus, the court ordered FDA to ban<br />
the colors listed under the de minimis principle.</p>
<p>In the past two Congresses, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and<br />
Congressman Henry Waxman of California have introduced legislation concerning<br />
pesticides that others in government would extend to other<br />
additives--including colors--as well.  The proposed legislation would<br />
substitute a "negligible risk" standard for the "zero-risk" standard (such as<br />
described in the Delaney Clause) to the regulation of pesticides.  The bills<br />
define "negligible risk" as causing at most one additional case of cancer in 1<br />
million people over a 70-year lifetime of exposure to the compound.</p>
<p>President Bush endorsed the negligible risk standard for pesticides in his<br />
October 1989 Food Safety Plan.  A joint press statement issued that same day<br />
by HHS Secretary Sullivan, USDA Secretary Yeutter, and EPA Administrator<br />
Reilly noted that while the president's plan specifically addresses pesticide<br />
residues, the principle of negligible risk is one that naturally applies to<br />
other additives to the food supply.</p>
<p>Small Risks</p>
<p>The ban of the provisionally listed uses of FDC Red No. 3 applies to new<br />
manufacture and production of affected products.  Because any health risks<br />
posed by Red No. 3 are extremely small, FDA concluded that consumers may<br />
continue to use existing supplies of products that already contain that color.</p>
<p>Following the mandate of the Delaney Clause, FDA will now reconsider the<br />
permanently listed uses of the straight form of FDC Red No. 3.  The procedure<br />
for banning a permanently listed dye, however, is more complex than that for<br />
terminating the provisional uses and requires time for public comment.</p>
<p>Though in the future, new definitions of acceptable risk spawned by new<br />
technologies may replace the Delaney definition, for now FDA must operate<br />
under this meaning and say to consumers that because of the risks, certain<br />
uses of FD&amp;C Red No. 3 can no longer be allowed.</p>
<p>Dale Blumenthal is a staff writer for FDA Consumer.</p>
<p>Lists Available</p>
<p>For complete lists of color additives approved for use in food, drugs and<br />
cosmetics--including the year approved, uses and restrictions--write to:<br />
Division of Colors and Cosmetics<br />
FDA (HFF-442)<br />
200 C Street, S.W.<br />
Washington, D.C. 20204</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bannedfoods.net/2008/12/07/reddye-no-3-and-other-dyes-are-they-safe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
