Food colourings are a class of chemicals that quite neatly encapsulates many cultural clashes over the nature and safety of substances. Is a ‘natural’ colour safer or better than a synthetic one? Does the fact that a compound poses some hazard at massive exposure (such as when fed to rats at high doses) translate to a real risk of harm to humans at low levels found in food? Where should regulators draw the line?
The picture gets even more clouded when the products that these colours are used in are marketed to children, who are more easily drawn towards their vibrant hues, and less likely to stop and consider their safety. Parents’ concerns will naturally tend to be more conservative around risk when it comes to their kids’ exposure to compounds that are associated with hazards ranging from unruly behaviour to increased cancer risk.
The US has, until recently, tended to be less restrictive of synthetic food dyes. In Europe, Canada or elsewhere, products like orange flavour drinks might use colours derived either from oranges themselves, or possibly from carrots or other orange plants. Their colours are noticeably more subdued than their more flamboyant US formulations. But a closer look at regulations shows that there are, similarly, various colours that are permitted in the EU or UK that have never passed regulatory scrutiny in the US.
Now, as part of the highly-politicised Make America Healthy Again movement, US leaders have moved to eliminate all synthetic food dyes. In some cases, this aligns with regulations elsewhere, where the colours are banned or come with warning labels about possible negative effects. For others there appears to be very little evidence of harm, and the products are being removed simply because they are synthetic. The government’s rhetoric, describing dyes as petroleum-based poisonous compounds, plays to popular fears rather than scientific evidence.
The problem is there is relatively little solid evidence. Animal studies can provide clues, but rodent physiology doesn’t necessarily translate to humans. And the ethical and logistical requirements of running trials on children (that are big enough and well-controlled enough to discern relatively small health effects) mean there is very little incentive to do so. The few high-quality independent trials that have tried to investigate the effects of artificial colourings on children’s behaviour identified modest but noticeable effects, and had significant influence on UK and European regulatory policy – although they were not convincing enough to precipitate an outright ban.
In the end, for most required colours in food, there are alternatives. The plant- and algae-derived substitutes may not produce quite the same intense, lively tones, and may be marginally more expensive. Once removed (and products reformulated), however, it seems unlikely that any politician would campaign for them to be reintroduced, given the widespread popular opposition. Their safety therefore becomes almost moot.
No comments yet