During a Senate Committee meeting this week, U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Auburn) questioned U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials over potentially harmful chemicals in America’s food supply.

Tuberville has joined with President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for director of U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in sounding the alarm over concerns with America’s food supply.

RFK Jr. has been a critic of America’s food and beverage industry long before ever vying for an independent shot at the presidency and longer still before jumping on the MAGA bandwagon and endorsing Trump for president.

RFK has criticized the food and beverage industry for several reasons, including its perceived inferiority to Canada and other European nations for allowing ingredients that those countries have banned for their adverse health effects. He has specifically targeted seed oils, ultra-processed foods, pesticides, food dyes, and more.

On Thursday, Tuberville questioned FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and Jim Jones, Deputy Commissioner of the Human Foods Program at the FDA, during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing.

Tuberville began his questioning by asking about red dyes no.40 and no.3, which are common targets for health advocates, including RFK, for their perceived negative health effects. Opponents say the dye is specifically linked to developmental and behavioral problems in children.

California has mandated that food manufacturers replace certain artificial ingredients, including Red no.40 and no.3, with naturally derived alternatives by 2027 or face removal from public school vending machines and cafeterias in the entire state.

The FDA has banned the use of Red Dye No. 3 in cosmetics since research in animals linked it to cancer, and the agency has promised it would also seek to extend the ban to foods and drugs.

A video of the exchange can be found below, along with a transcript of the interaction:

TUBERVILLE: “So, I wanna ask you about Red No. 3 and Red No. 40, both of you. And get your comments on this—it's not a conservative or a liberal standpoint. I think we all need to understand as a group about how we've gotten to this point. The FDA has a position that food coloring like [Red Dye No.] 40 are safe for a kid's ingestion. Do both of you stand behind that, Dr. Califf?"

CALIFF: "I'm going to refer that to Mr. Jones."

JONES: "We have not evaluated Red [Dye No.] 40 in over a decade—over a decade ago.”

TUBERVILLE: "Why? We have not?"

JONES: "We have not. At [the] FDA, we have not evaluated the safety of Red [Dye No.] 40 in over a decade. So, over a decade [ago], that was the conclusion that FDA made."

CALIFF: "We are in the process of evaluating Red [Dye No.] 3. And you may want to comment on that."

TUBERVILLE: "Well, let me say this, Red [Dye No.] 3 has been known to cause cancer [when used in] cosmetics, but we're still allow it to be put into our food. I don't understand that. Go ahead."

JONES: "So, Red [Dye No.] 3, we have a petition in front of us to revoke the authorization for it, and we are hopeful that within the next few weeks, we will be acting on that petition—that a decision should be forthcoming."

TUBERVILLE: "Tell us that process. How does that work? The timeline, you know, if we know something is deadly for anybody that ingests it, how do we continue to just study that and not say, 'hey, enough, enough.'"

JONES: "So, Red [Dye No.] 3 presents an interesting example for us. It is actually known to be cancer in laboratory animals: rats. But the scientific consensus is that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in rats is not applicable in humans. However, under the FFDCA, which is the law that we implement, any chemical that is shown to be carcinogenic in animals, or humans, or should I say humans or animals, cannot be authorized by FDA. It's called the Delaney Clause. And so even though we don't believe there is a risk to humans under the Delaney Clause of the FFDCA, Red Dye, because it is known to cause cancer in laboratory animals, should not be authorized. And so that is what has been—has challenged FDA for many years is how to manage around the Delaney Clause where you have a scenario where although there may be cancer evidence in animals, there is also evidence that is not harmful to humans."

TUBERVILLE: "I hope the FDA feels a responsibility to humans. Dr. Califf, you probably heard quite a bit about this for the last four years that you've been serving us. Has this been a priority? Because we hear constantly about dyes. I mean, dyes are just coloring. It has nothing to do with the taste or anything like that."

CALIFF: "Yeah. A couple of things about so first of all, it is a priority. And I want to point out, listen carefully to what Mr. John said, we don't have data in humans that [Red Dye] No. 3 causes cancer, but we have it in laboratory animals. And so, this gets complicated.

TUBERVILLE: "I wanna ask you this, and I think everybody in here wants to want to hear the answer to this question. We all hear Europe uses different dyes because they've come up with their evaluation that it does cause problems for humans. Do we have a different review system than they do about food dyes or anything put in food?"

JONES: "The biggest distinction between the U.S. and Europe is that they have been doing post market review of chemicals now for over 20 years. In the FDA, although we have authorization to do post-market reviews, there's no statutory mandate to do them. One of the things that Dr. Califf mentioned is that as part of this reorganization, we are dedicating an entire office whose job is to do post-market chemical reviews.

CALIFF: "There's a real lesson here from, I don't know if you eat Fruit Loops. I grew up every once in a while eating Fruit Loops. But there's a real lesson here and I haven't verified this myself, but it's widely written that when the dyes that make Fruit Loops bright were taken out for the reasons that you gave. The sales went straight down, and they were put back in.”

“So, as long as we have a consumer driven system where what people like in the short term is what drives the system, unless we have help from you all, that is clear direction from Congress. Particularly, given the recent Supreme Court decisions.”

To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email craig.monger@1819news.com.

Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.

NCF Lifeline730 Adoption October 2021 JH Outback