European Union officials might feel vindicated after the United States Food and Drug Administration decided to ban erythrosine on the 15th of January 2025. Displayed under the number E127 on EU labels, erythrosine is typically used to give food and drinks a vibrant red color. Since 1994, however, Europe has banned its use in anything other than cocktails and candy cherries, citing supposed worries around E127 and public health in the form of hyperactivity and thyroid problems, including a potential link to higher rates of thyroid cancer. Europeans could claim that they have been keeping consumers safer for much longer than America.
Any such boasting on the issue would be uncalled for. Seeing another agency reach the same conclusion does not give the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the main body responsible for overseeing the safety and quality of the EU’s food, permission to set aside the scientific and economic facts out of over-precaution.
The EFSA makes much of the hyperactivity claim, citing it as the main reason for outlawing E127 as early as 1994. The reality is that evidence of erythrosine’s harm is limited. Studies that find a link between the dye and hyperactivity and imbalances in the thyroid gland cite what statisticians like to call a small effect size. Put simply, food dyes account for a small part of a much larger problem. Other factors, like personal genetics and underlying environmental factors, better explain children and young adults’ smaller attention spans.
More serious accusations of erythrosine causing thyroid cancer in adults that the EFSA has toyed with are even less well-grounded. Reliable findings refer mainly to experiments on male mice. Of course, one substance being toxic to mice does not make it harmful to humans.
To its credit, the EFSA acknowledges more evidence is needed in its 2011 reassessment of E127, where any potential to create tumors “may be considered of limited relevance to humans” and not related to any changes in cell structure (“genotoxic activity”). Still, it feels the need to keep the substance restricted from the mere possibility of it happening.
Quantity matters, too. Too much or too little, no matter how good or bad, can lead to problems. As such, the EFSA establishes an acceptable daily intake, the amount anyone can consume without threatening an average person’s health. The threshold for erythrosine is relatively low at just 0.1mg per kilogram per day. Yet the consumption rate for 95% of all adults is a mere fraction of that number at 0.0031 mg per kilogram per day, posing no danger to most people. Despite this fact from the EFSA’s own figures, the agency has yet to revise its attitude to E127.
More than anything attempts to create “purely organic” food will collide with the economic realities businesses and consumers face. Items using natural colorants have a much shorter shelf life, forcing manufacturers to use more additives and add extra preservatives to keep their products viable. These workarounds result in more expensive food to make and stock, leaving consumers with fewer and pricier choices than before.
Therefore, instead of mutual congratulations, it is time to rethink food regulations and avoid future mistakes. In a September 2024 article on tackling emerging risks, the EFSA recognizes the need to improve its overall risk communication.
Though a pertinent suggestion, it should only be the start of reform. The regulatory body must revise its generally precautionary instincts (a futile attempt to eliminate all risks) in favor of risk-based management, which aims to minimize all possible dangers.
At the same time, EU policymakers should address substances based on all available evidence rather than preconceived notions that equate “natural” with “good” and “artificial” with “bad”. Real vindication does not come from feeling superior but from improving consumer well-being.
Emil Panzaru is Research Director at the Consumer Choice Center where he has written extensively on chemicals policy and lifestyle regulations.