California isn’t banning Skittles, but 4 additives to be removed

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has approved first-in-the-nation legislation that bans the manufacture, sale and distribution of four additives found in thousands of food products, including, among others, soft candies, baked goods, frostings and icings, frozen dairy desserts, sherbet, frozen fruit bars and toaster pastries.

The Environmental Working Group, which along with Consumer Reports pushed for the measure, said as many as 12,000 food products could be affected, based on its Food Scores database.

“California is creating a healthier market for consumers,” said Ken Cook, EWG’s president.

But the National Confectioners Association, which represents the candy industry, said in a statement that California was “once again making decisions based on soundbites rather than science,” and criticized Newsom for what they said was a move to undermine consumer confidence and create confusion around food safety. “This law replaces a uniform national food safety system with a patchwork of inconsistent state requirements created by legislative fiat that will increase food costs,” the statement said.

In September, the International Association of Color Manufacturers released similar criticism, saying that California’s actions “are not based on sound scientific assessments and undermine established regulations that have long ensured food safety.”

‘Skittles ban’ not a ban on Skittles

The California law, which doesn’t go into effect until 2027, misleadingly became known as the “Skittles ban,” raising the possibility that the candy would disappear if the measure were enacted. Newsom took special note of this when signing the bill.

“There have been many misconceptions about this bill and its impacts,” he said. “For example, attached to this message is a bag of the popular candy Skittles, which became the face of this proposal. This particular bag of candy comes from the European Union – a place that already bans a number of chemical additives and colorants. This is demonstrable proof that the food industry is capable of maintaining product lines while complying with different public health laws, country-to-country.”

Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs, stressed that “there’s no realistic chance that this bill will result in any products, including Skittles, being pulled from shelves. Companies will simply change their recipes to match what they’re already selling in other places.”

Additives linked to cancer risk

The chemicals are red dye No. 3, bromated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propyl paraben, which have been linked to, among other health concerns, the risk of cancer and hyperactivity in children.

The chemicals already are prohibited or restricted in Europe, with the exception of the dye, which is allowed only in certain types of cherries. A similar bill, which also adds titanium dioxide to the other four chemicals, is pending in the New York state legislature.

Titanium dioxide is a white food colorant often used in candies and processed foods to give a smooth texture. Titanium dioxide is found in the U.S. recipe for Skittles but does not feature in bags of the sweets sold or consumed in Europe, since it was banned by the European Union last year. It is also found in Nerds candy.

Ban may affect products nationwide

“We don’t need these risky additives in our food supply,” said Lisa Lefferts, a scientist and consultant to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has long opposed the use of many chemicals in the food supply. “This is good news, not just for California but for the entire country.”

She was referring to the likelihood that California’s action will have an effect on food products nationwide, since food manufacturers are not expected to produce two different varieties of their products – one recipe for California and another for everywhere else – especially since they have more than three years to change their ingredients.

“Companies won’t bother selling two different versions,” she said. “Once they reformulate it, they probably will sell it nationwide. We know it can be done because they’ve already done it in Europe.”

“Safer versions of food products that are available in other countries should be made available to U.S. consumers, too,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports.

Red dye No. 3 in many products

More than 30 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration banned the use of red dye No. 3 – also known as erythrosine or FD&C Red No. 3 – in cosmetics and externally applied drugs, based on its analysis of unpublished animal research suggesting a link to thyroid cancer.

But the agency still allows its use in thousands of foods, dietary supplements and ingested drugs. It has not yet responded to a petition filed by the CSPI earlier this year to remove it entirely.

“As California goes, so goes the nation,” said toxicologist Linda Birnbaum, a microbiologist and former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program.

“It is amazing that the U.S. FDA has not banned red dye No. 3 in food, given that it was banned by the FDA for use in cosmetics after it was shown to cause cancer in rodents,” said Birnbaum, now scholar in residence at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “I hope this will mean that the bright-red and pink food colors that involve red dye No. 3 will no longer be allowed.”

- – -

Marlene Cimons is a Washington-based freelance writer who specializes in health, science and the environment. She was a Washington reporter for the Los Angeles Times covering public health, biomedical research policy, and food and drug regulation.