Food dyes banned in the USA – how harmful are they?

Last summer, a warning on social media was spreading: Aperol Spritz, the favorite summer drink of the Germans, was supposed to be carcinogenic. The dyes contained in unusually high concentration are to blame (E110) and cochine field a (E124). In the United States, the authorities have already taken measures: Cochinellot A is not approved there, and the dye yellow orange should no longer be processed in food from 2026.

The US Health Minister Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had announced a “fight against Big Food” before he took office. In addition to E110, Kennedys also have seven other synthetic dyes, four of which are also approved in the EU. They have to be marked, customers can be found on food packaging under E-numbers 102, 129 132 and 133.

The synthetic substances dye candies, roar, gummy bears or ice cream brightly colorful – and, according to Kennedy, they all represent a real, measurable danger to the health and development of our children. ”

As a proven conspiracy theorist and vaccination skeptic, Kennedy is probably the most controversial health minister that the United States ever had. His decisions are quickly suspected of being alarm. But in this case, Kennedy is at least partially correct. There have long been evidence that certain synthetic dyes influence neuronal development in children and could possibly cause ADHD syndrome.

As early as 2007, researchers from the University of Southhampton hardened this hypothesis in a children and 144 nine -year -old children to 153 and 144. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) found in this investigation and came to the conclusion that the only “limited evidence” provided it for a “minor effect”.

Nevertheless, 2010 was introduced in the EU mandatory for certain azo dyes: “Can affect activity and attention in children.” The sender of this warning is not the EFSA itself, but the EU Parliament-legally the warning has the status of a “provisional risk management measure”.

The German consumer center criticizes this as, especially since children bought their sweets themselves and can hardly be deterred by warnings. That is why consumer advocates, like the non -profit association, demand that the so -called azo dyes should be banned in general – especially since they could also trigger pseudo -allergies with symptoms such as rashes and asthma.

For individual azo dyes, a risk of cancer is also discussed with reference to animal studies. According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the small amounts used in food are considered harmless to health.

The only exception: The dye erythrosine (E 127) could actually cause thyroid cancer. In one of the specialist literature from 2011, EFSA comes to the conclusion that erythrosine does not have a cancer triggering, but the function of the thyroid gland in animal experiments has been proven to influence – the long -term sequence of a thyroid dysfunction would then be.

In the EU, erythrosine may only be used for cocktail and candied cherries, so far it has been found in the USA in several thousand foods. However, from 2027 they should be banned in the United States, one of the US Food and Drug Administration FDA, which already occurred before Kennedy’s office.

The risk reviews by EFSA have a big problem: they are too old. There are statements from 2009 to 2014 on the dyes that have now landed on Kennedy’s Black List, none is more current. When asked by the star If the authority answers: “As a risk reviewer, EFSA is not involved in risk management decisions.” One acts on behalf of the European Commission that the star turn – or to the “risk managers in the member states”.

In Germany, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) means. But that plays in his answer to a request from the star The ball back to EFSA: An essential prerequisite for the approval of the in question is that the use is harmless to health – and that is examining the EFSA. Incidentally, one has “no knowledge that would justify health concerns about these or other approved food dyes”.

The authorities therefore push each other’s responsibility to ensure that there are no more recent risk reviews. And one question remains unanswered: Why do you even need certain synthetic dyes for which health risks have to be discussed again and again? Why don’t you replace them with more natural alternatives?

Perhaps new impulses come from the USA, namely from that by Kennedy in terms of personnel weakened food surveillance authority FDA. The Minister of Health promises that research on dye alternatives should now be promoted. It is to be hoped that there are still competent scientists in the FDA.

A personal final remark: I continue to drink my Aperol Spritz without greater worries. Because even if there is a cancer risk, the amount of dyes that you absorb with one or even two glasses is far below the maximum values ​​that the EFSA has determined. I am also grown up and neither affected or threatened by ADHD.

Even if the EFSA risk assessment was a long time ago, you have to be aware: the far greater health risk is based on another substance in the cult beverage: alcohol.