\n<\/p>\n
California just banned four food additives\u2014and now everyone is talking about what this means for the future of candy.<\/p>\n
Referred to as the \u201cSkittles ban\u201d (a bit of a misnomer as the bill won\u2019t actually affect the rainbow candy), this legislation aims to ban brominated vegetable oil<\/a>, propyl paraben, red dye No. 3, and potassium bromate from food products by 2027. The additives have been linked to risk of cancer and \u201chyperactivity in children<\/a>,\u201d according to the new California bill, passed in early September.<\/p>\n An earlier draft of this bill included a fifth additive: titanium dioxide, a food coloring agent that is<\/em> found in Skittles (it\u2019s what makes that candy coating sooooo<\/em> smooth). The chemical had been linked to damage in DNA<\/a>, called genotoxicity.<\/p>\n Additionally, when announcing the passing of the bill, Governor Gavin Newsom used a bag of Skittles that had been \u201cproduced in the EU\u201d to demonstrate how food additives are used\u2014or, rather, not<\/em> used\u2014in other parts of the world. The pairing of the previous version of the bill, coupled with Newsom’s puzzling Skittles example led to the internet glomming onto the rainbow candies as a prized, yet incorrect, example.<\/p>\n Strawberry Yoohoo, Brach\u2019s candy corn, some Little Debbie and Hostess products (sorry Cosmic Brownies and Mini Muffins), and Peeps are all going to be impacted by the bill. However, the Environmental Working Group\u2014who, along with Consumer Reports, pushed for the bill\u2014says over 10,000 products could potentially be affected.<\/p>\n California has been a leader in \u201cpreventative\u201d banning and extra-cautious labeling of food ingredients. For example, Proposition 65<\/a> requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and it impacts foods ranging from shellfish to protein powders. So, it\u2019s not completely surprising that another new bill would come out of California\u2014but this one has the potential to impact how candies are manufactured throughout the greater US.<\/p>\n Essentially, the ban stems from the fact that these particular additives have not been tested or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for about 40 to 50 years. Even so, the FDA has, over the past decades, already limited the use of a couple of these items: brominated vegetable oil and red dye No. 3.<\/p>\n In the \u201970s, the FDA announced a limit on the use of brominated vegetable oil. The decision was based on studies conducted in the late \u201960s, in which rats were fed aggressively large quantities of the oil (amounts we wouldn\u2019t be able to consume in many lifetimes over) and which resulted in concerns about \u201cpossible effects on the heart<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n In the \u201990s, red dye No. 3 was banned for cosmetic use. The additive, also known as erythrosine, was banned by the FDA for cosmetic use in 1990 following the discovery of potential links tying it to thyroid cancer. However, these claims came from unpublished animal research<\/a>.<\/p>\n If you noticed a lot of hesitant language, that\u2019s on purpose. Science is an ever-changing beast, which makes it notoriously tricky to cover. Studies are done and redone, research is scrutinized over and over, and meaningful progress is often made at an incremental pace. At the same time, our environment is rapidly changing around us, and so is the technology used to study it. Therefore, it\u2019s worth revisiting whether or not a given product could be a cause for concern decades later, especially because the longer we are exposed to various items, the more data points we have on its impacts\u2014and that information can be useful in determining what\u2019s safe for public consumption.<\/p>\n This ban will result in minor modifications to recipes of the products sold in California. However, this mandate may cause a wider shift across the industry; because producers likely won\u2019t want to pay for two separate production facilities, we may see newly formulated candy products across the country by 2027.<\/p>\n Why is it called \u2018the skittles ban\u2019?<\/h3>\n
What is actually banned?<\/h3>\n
Why now, and why these products?<\/h3>\n
What will actually happen in 2027?<\/h3>\n
More from Food52<\/h4>\n
\n
\nWhat food science question do you want Emily to answer next? Let her know in the comments!<\/em>
\n<\/center>\n <\/div>\n