US bans popular red dye from foods — 35 years after it was banned in cosmetics

 The FDA today has issued an order today that will ban Red No. 3 from food products and ingested drugs.

The dye, which was approved for use in 1907, has been banned in cosmetics and topical drugs since 1990 over evidence that it can cause cancer. Its use in food is already banned or restricted in Australia, Japan, and countries in the EU.

Red No. 3. is commonly found in candy, gum and cookies, including Brach’s candy corn, Betty Crocker sprinkles and strawberry Ensure.

6

The FDA today has issued an order today that will ban Red No. 3 from food products and ingested drugs.Getty Images/iStockphoto

Food manufacturers will have until Jan. 15, 2027, to remove it from all products, while makers of ingested drugs will have until Jan. 18, 2028.

Continue watchingThis Day in Historyafter the ad

The new ban is based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was enacted in 1960.

The Delaney Clause prohibits the FDA from authorizing any food or color additive that has been found to cause cancer.

“The FDA cannot authorize a food additive or color additive if it has been found to cause cancer in human or animals,” said Jim Jones, the FDA’s deputy director for human foods, according to NBC. “Evidence shows cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3.”

6

The red dye is commonly used in candy and gum and can be found in strawberry Ring Pops.The Washington Post via Getty Images

The move came in response to a petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest and 23 other organizations, which included data showing male lab rats exposed to high levels of Red No. 3 got cancer.

However, the FDA noted that studies in humans and other animals did not show the same effect, saying that “available data does not raise safety concerns for humans.”

They also said that Red No. 3 is used in Canada and Europe but under the name erythrosine.

While Red No. 3 has been banned in cosmetics and topical drugs for nearly 35 years, it has remained in food and ingested drugs — but not for lack of concern.

“The widespread use of red dye No. 3 is particularly concerning since it is found in many products marketed to children who are especially at risk of developing health problems from exposure,” Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, said in a statement.

“These food dyes only serve one function in food, to make them look pretty so you and I want to buy it, it’s a marketing tool,” Thomas Galligan, who works at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told NBC.

In fact, the FDA previously announced that intended to ban it in food in 1992 but ultimately did not take action because of the resources that would be needed to remove its authorization.

6

It can be found in many popular foods, including MorningStar Farms Veggie Bacon Strips, Dubble Bubble Original Twist Bubble Gum and Fruit by the Foot Starburst.AFP via Getty Images

6

The Delaney Clause prohibits the FDA from authorizing any food or color additive that has been found to cause cancer.AFP via Getty Images

The federal ban comes over a year after The California Food Safety Act, in which Red No. 3 and three other food additives were banned in the state. That law, too, will not be implemented until 2027.

Other states including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Illinois and South Dakota have also introduced legislation.

While the FDA has now followed suit, California’s law proved controversial at the time — and earned some backlash from food manufacturers.

“California is once again making decisions based on soundbites rather than science. Governor Newsom’s approval of this bill will undermine consumer confidence and create confusion around food safety,” the National Confectioners Association, an industry trade group, said in a statement.

6

Peeps already began the process of removing Red No. 3 after California passed a ban in 2023.AP

“This is a slippery slope that the FDA could prevent by engaging on this important topic. We should be relying on the scientific rigor of the FDA in terms of evaluating the safety of food ingredients and additives.”

What is Red No. 3 and what foods is it in?

Also called Red 3 or FD&C Red 3, Red No. 3 is a synthetic food coloring derived from petroleum that can be found in many popular foods, including:

• MorningStar Farms Veggie Bacon Strips
• Vigo Saffron Yellow Rice
• PEZ Candy
• Dubble Bubble Original Twist Bubble Gum
• Entenmann’s Little Bites Party Cake Mini Muffins
• Betty Crocker Loaded Mashed Potatoes
• Fruit by the Foot Starburst
• Dole Diced Fruit Cup
• Fruit cocktail cherries

6

“This is a slippery slope that the FDA could prevent by engaging on this important topic. We should be relying on the scientific rigor of the FDA in terms of evaluating the safety of food ingredients and additives,” the National Confectioners Association said in a statement.Artem Zakharov – stock.adobe.com

Some food brands have already taken steps to remove it.

In 2023, in response to California’s law, Peeps manufacturer Just Born announced plans to remove Red No. 3.

Last year, it was only in the pink and lavender varieties.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/15/health/us-bans-red-dye-no-3-from-foods-amid-evidence-it-causes-cancer/

Washington Dems Propose Bill Banning Child Care Workers From Reporting Illegal Immigrants To Feds

 Despite Trump's win in November and his inauguration in less than a week, Democrats aren't letting go of the illegal immigration rope. 

In fact, now, Washington Democrats have proposed a bill barring child care employers, including families, from reporting criminal illegal immigrants to federal authorities, even if suspected of crimes against children, according to KTTH.

House Bill 1128 creates the Washington State Child Care Workforce Standards Board, giving Democrats greater control over the child care industry. It sets new rules for wages, benefits, and working conditions, along with additional "rights" for child care workers.

Controversially, it also bans employers from reporting or threatening to report a child care worker’s immigration status for asserting rights under the act, raising constitutional concerns.

The KTTH report says that House Bill 1128 defines any employer of child care workers, including families, as a “child care employer,” bringing private hiring arrangements under its purview. Democrats argue the bill addresses low pay and high turnover in the child care industry, aiming to improve quality and accessibility by enhancing worker protections and stability.

However, critics contend it represents a partisan takeover of the child care industry and shields illegal immigrants, even those who pose risks.

A contentious provision in the bill bars employers from reporting a child care worker’s immigration status if the worker is exercising a right created under the legislation. This could lead to retaliation claims, even long after an incident.

If a child care worker is found to be in the country illegally while invoking these rights, employers would be prohibited from reporting them to federal authorities. Critics warn this loophole could enable neglectful or abusive workers to avoid accountability, endangering children and allowing such individuals to find employment elsewhere.

The bill also raises constitutional concerns by conflicting with federal law. The Immigration Reform and Control Act requires employers to verify work authorization and prohibits hiring unauthorized workers.

A state law preventing employers from reporting illegal workers interferes with federal obligations, potentially violating the Supremacy Clause, which ensures federal law takes precedence. Critics argue this interference undermines immigration enforcement and federal authority.

Despite constitutional and safety concerns, proponents remain focused on worker protections, while opponents highlight risks to children and families. As debates continue, the bill underscores broader tensions between state policies and federal immigration law, with far-reaching implications for child care and beyond.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/washinton-dems-propose-bill-banning-child-care-workers-reporting-illegal-immigrants-feds

Switzerland, Serbia Offer To Host Trump–Putin Ukraine Peace Talks

 by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Switzerland and Serbia have both offered to host a potential meeting between President-elect Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, following recent discussions about the possibility of such talks.

The Swiss Foreign Ministry said on Jan. 12 that it is willing to host talks between Trump and Putin, while Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said on the same day that his country would be an “extremely suitable” venue for such a meeting given that both men are highly popular in the Balkan country.

Switzerland, which is not a member of NATO or the European Union, is widely recognized as a neutral country and has maintained a policy of neutrality for centuries. The country has often served as a venue for diplomatic meetings and peace talks because of its reputation for neutrality.

Serbia, which is also not a NATO member, is in the process of joining the EU, with talks at an advanced stage. The country has historically maintained close ties with Russia and has not imposed sanctions on Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.

Trump, who has vowed to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine after he assumes office, announced last week that his team is working to arrange a meeting with Putin. The president-elect, who is set to be sworn into office for a second term on Jan. 20, did not provide any further details about where or when the meeting might take place or what might be on the agenda.

“That’s a war that would have never happened if I had been president, and it’s a war I’m going to try and stop as quickly as I can,” Trump said during a Jan. 9 dinner with GOP governors at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.

The president-elect decried the “staggering” loss of life in the Russia–Ukraine conflict, adding:

“We have to get that war over with. That’s a bloody mess.”

Putin has repeatedly said that Russia is ready for dialogue with the incoming Trump administration on the situation in Ukraine, and that the Kremlin is ready to make “compromises.” The Russian leader has also expressed confidence that Trump will be able to navigate the complexities of the conflict and create the conditions for a peace deal.

In a June meeting with Russian Foreign Ministry leaders, Putin outlined conditions for peace talks, including Ukrainian troop withdrawals from contested regions, Ukraine’s adoption of a neutral status, “demilitarization” of the country, and the lifting of Western sanctions.

While Trump has pledged to bring an end to the hostilities, he has offered few specifics as to how he would accomplish that. Trump has said that he would leverage his personal relationships with both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to bring the two men to the table to hammer out a deal.

Zelenskyy has proposed a “victory plan” that rests on four pillars—military, political, diplomatic, and economic—and that would include permission to use Western-supplied weapons to strike deeper into Russia. Trump, who opposes allowing Kyiv to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike inside Russian territory, appears to back a negotiated settlement that could include territory ceded by Ukraine to Russia.

Trump has appointed retired Gen. Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Kellogg, co-chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, outlined his approach to ending the Ukraine war in an April 2024 report.

His recommendations include pursuing a formal cease-fire, delaying Ukraine’s NATO membership in exchange for a verifiable peace deal, tying U.S. military aid to Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate, offering limited sanctions relief to Russia for compliance, and establishing bilateral defense agreements to secure Ukraine’s long-term safety.

President Joe Biden has pledged to surge as much military aid to Ukraine as possible while he is still in office, saying that this would put Kyiv in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and give it the most leverage in the anticipated peace negotiations.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/switzerland-serbia-offer-host-trump-putin-ukraine-peace-talks

Visualizing All Of Canada's Cancelled Energy Projects

 by Omid Ghoreishi via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

While Canada’s resource sector was dealt a blow with the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline’s permit by the United States, Canadian officials are facing another challenge as Michigan’s governor tries to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline.

A proposed tanker route out of Kitimat, B.C., related to the Northern Gateway project is shown on a map on Sept, 19, 2013. The project was effectively cancelled after the federal government banned oil tankers from B.C.’s north coast. The Canadian Press/Jonathan Hayward

The Line 5 pipeline, which crosses Wisconsin and Michigan, brings oil from Western Canada east, where it is refined in Sarnia, Ont., into products like gasoline, diesel, and home-heating fuel. Shutting down Line 5 would have a major impact on the crude oil supply of Eastern Canada and cost thousands of jobs.

Some activist groups in Minnesota are also hoping to stop Calgary-based Enbridge’s Line 3 project, launching legal challenges and even hoping U.S. President Joe Biden will cancel the project like he did Keystone XL. Line 3, along with the Trans Mountain expansion project and Keystone XL, before the latter’s permit was revoked, are the three major oil pipeline projects currently underway in Canada.

But impediments to Canada’s pipeline and resource projects aren’t limited to the ones crossing the border. In recent years the country has seen a number of cancellations and hold-offs on energy projects located within its own borders. Some were due to market conditions and prioritization decisions by owners. But a considerable number of projects have been cancelled due to cited uncertainty in the regulatory process and environmental policies, as well as indigenous consultation complexities.

Ottawa has introduced new environmental legislation, including Bill C-69, which faced challenges from some provinces for increasing the regulatory burden. Bill C-69, which became law in 2019, set out a new federal process for the environmental impact assessment of major projects. The opposition Conservatives and industry groups said the legislation will scare away investors, while the Liberals said the existing legislation didn’t provide adequate environmental protections and that was why projects were getting stalled in the courts.

A 2019 study by the C.D. Howe Institute said that announcements of new energy and mining projects in Canada slowed after 2015. And between 2017 and 2018, the planned investment value of major resource sector projects went down by $100 billion, equivalent to 4.5 percent of Canada’s GDP, the study said.

“Many projects in Canada have faced environmental assessments that take much longer than in comparator jurisdictions: Canadian timelines for mining projects are substantially longer than in Australia, and Canadian pipeline approvals are protracted relative to those in the United States,” the study said.

The infographic below shows some of the energy projects that have been cancelled in Canada for various reasons between 2015 and 2020, adding up to an estimated investment loss of over $175 billion. Also shown are the three major pipeline projects: Keystone XL, the Trans Mountain expansion, and Enbridge’s Line 3.

In many cases, the cancellation of energy projects has had the impact of reducing market access for Canadian oil and gas exports. In the case of the Energy East pipeline, which was to deliver crude oil from Western Canada to Eastern Canada, the cancellation meant more reliance on foreign imported oil for Eastern Canada, more oil exported from Western Canada to the United States at a discount, and more use of other means of transportation to move the oil.

In 2019, Canada exported 3.8 million barrels of crude oil per day, with 3.7 million barrels per day of those exports going to the United States. That amounted to 98 percent of all Canadian crude oil exports, with Canada supplying 48 percent of the total U.S. crude oil imports. That year, Canada imported 0.8 million barrels of crude oil per day, with those imports primarily coming from the United States (79 percent), followed by Saudi Arabia (12 percent) and Russia (2 percent).

Click to enlarge

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/infographic-canadas-cancelled-energy-projects