I was quoted in Reason Magazine on the issue of food dye regulation in the United States. You can find the entire article here.

But critics argue these studies don’t reflect real-world consumption levels. “The cancer-causing ‘links’ found in studies are based on dangerously high doses given to lab rats in amounts no human would ever consume, even if they ate a whole box of cereal or pack of hot dogs,” says Bill Wirtz, a senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center. “Banning food dyes is a performative regulatory action. All dyes currently used by manufacturers do not pose a known health risk to consumers.”

California’s Red 3 ban in 2023 created “a complicated map of where food producers can sell their products,” says Wirtz. This regulatory patchwork makes it “very difficult for smaller businesses there to reach consumers and survive long term. Larger corporations can afford the compliance costs and employ enough people to reformulate, repackage, and re-organize their supply chains.”

A national ban would mean there isn’t a patchwork anymore—but by moving in the wrong direction. Besides the scientific shakiness of such a regulation, such a rule would override consumer choice and might even give eaters a false sense of security: If Americans come to believe that dye-free foods are inherently healthy, they might consume more processed foods rather than less. “Moderation in all things is still the best message,” says Wirtz, “rather than performative regulatory crackdowns.”