There's ample evidence that Red No. 3's use in beverages, dietary supplements, cereals, and candies may cause cancer as well as affect children's behavior. The ban is a crucial victory for public health and consumer safety, demonstrates that protecting public health must take priority over industry interests, and addresses a long-standing regulatory paradox where a known carcinogen was banned in cosmetics but allowed in food products marketed to children.
The available scientific information doesn't conclusively support the claim that Red No. 3's use in food or drugs puts people at risk, with the evidence linking Red No. 3 to cancer in humans limited. The FDA's decision was largely driven by the legal requirements of the Delaney Clause. This ban is an example of overly cautious regulation that could unnecessarily burden food manufacturers with costly reformulation requirements.