If passed into law, a new measure in CA would make timeless sweets like Skittles an illicit commodity.
“California,” Governor Gavin Newsom insists, “is the true freedom state.” It is, in the governor’s estimation, “freedom’s force multiplier.”
“Freedom is who we are,” he continued, “anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything here.” If, however, “anyone from anywhere” wants to enjoy brightly colored candy confections, they may soon have to cross state lines to do so.
California lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would prohibit the in-state manufacture, distribution, and sale of food products containing, among other chemicals, Red Dye No. 3. Those substances cause “significant public health harms,” according to Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, one of the bill’s sponsors, “including increased risk of cancer, behavioral issues in children, harm to the reproductive system, and damage to the immune system.” If passed into law, the measure would make timeless sweets like Skittles an illicit commodity.
Gabriel insists that products containing this dye “entered the nation’s food supply through a loophole in federal law” — the “generally recognized as safe (GRAS)” standard employed by the FDA — which ensures that substances containing these chemicals make their way onto shelves with “almost no meaningful federal oversight.” As “almost” and “meaningful” suggest, this claim is nonsense.
“For a substance to be GRAS,” the FDA explains, “the scientific data and information about the use of a substance must be widely known, and there must be a consensus among qualified experts that those data and information establish that the substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use.” It should come as no surprise that Red Dye No. 3 has been exhaustively studied.
The agency prohibited its use in cosmetics in 1990 but declined to revise its guidelines regarding its use in food, which have pertained since 1907, because it is “poorly absorbed” by humans. The FDA’s GRAS standard departs from the European Union’s, which prohibits Red Dye No. 3 in foods because the American regulatory framework centers on the “probability” of bad outcomes. By contrast, Europe focuses on “the mere possibility” of hazard, according to Kansas State University professor Justin Kastner. The former is a statistically measurable metric. The latter can be as broad as your imagination allows.
It is generally understood that this additive is harmless in doses typically associated with consuming treats like sugary confections. But the presumption that individuals can regulate their consumption of consumer products is increasingly anathema in California law.
California’s Prop. 65, formally the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, compels businesses to warn consumers if a product contains chemicals that may cause cancer or include the risk of birth defects. That is an expansive list of chemicals that grows by the year. As such, Californians are not free to import products that do not comply with the state’s absurd labeling laws, but it also compels manufacturers to treat state residents like infants. Californians must be told that lumber contains sawdust, treadmills are constructed using plastics derived from petroleum products, and potato chips are made with preservatives.
The underlying assumption fueling these initiatives is not that lax oversight and corporate greed are acting in concert to expose unwitting adults to obvious dangers. It’s that Californians are idiots, and they need to be protected from themselves. But if state residents believe they need lawmakers to protect them from the ravages of Skittles candies, maybe Sacramento has a point.