Canned cherries made with red dye #3/Photo credit: Linnea Bullion For The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is moving to ban the use of Red No. 3 dye in food products.
The agency said Wednesday it is amending its color additive regulations to no longer allow the use of Red No. 3 in food, beverages and ingested drugs, in response to a 2022 petition from health groups and activists.
FD&C Red No. 3, also known as Red 3, is a synthetic food dye that gives foods and drinks a bright, cherry-red color. It is primarily used in foods such as candy, cakes and cupcakes, cookies, frozen desserts, frosting and icings, and some ingested drugs.
At least two studies have shown that high levels of the food dye were linked to cancer in rats. However, the link between the dye and cancer does not occur in humans, the FDA says.
While studies in other animals and humans did not show this link of cancer, an FDA regulation prohibits the agency to authorize color additive found to induce cancer in humans or animals, pushing the agency to revoke the food dye’s authorization.
Food manufacturers will have until 2027 to reformulate their products while drugmakers will have until 2028.
FDA Commissioner Robert Califf was asked at a Senate hearing in December why the dye had not been banned. He said the FDA hasn’t been given the resources to do the kind of post-market monitoring of substances done in Europe, where it has been largely banned since 1994. The FDA also banned the use of Red 3 in cosmetics in 1990.
“We have repeatedly asked for better funding for chemical safety … Please look at our request for funding for the people who do this work, remember that when we do ban something, it will go to court, and if we don’t have the scientific evidence … we will lose in court,” Califf said at the hearing.
Red 40, another synthetic food dye used to achieve a bright crimson color in condiments and candy, will remain available for use. Some studies have also shown Red 40 is a carcinogen in animals.
Red No. 3 was first approved by the FDA in 1969 and had been reviewed “multiple times” since then, according to the agency.
ABC News’ Kelly McCarthy contributed to this report.
In this undated stock photo, signage for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is shown. (STOCK PHOTO/Adobe Stock)
(WASHINGTON) — Medical groups are expressing deep concern about the sudden removal or alteration of government data sets and webpages from agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the behest of President Donald Trump’s administration.
The American Cancer Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating the disease, called on the administration to “restore access to comprehensive data, refrain from changes that would lead to incomplete future data collection and commit to ensure evidence-based science can proceed without additional bureaucracy or red tape” in a statement published on its website on Thursday.
“Any restriction to gather and release these data could thwart our ability to address and reduce the cancer burden across all communities,” interim CEO Dr. Wayne A. I. Frederick said in the statement.
The organization highlighted the removal of the Social Vulnerability Index, which uses U.S. census data to identify county-level risk and vulnerability factors facing communities, taking into account poverty, race, disability, housing and more, according to the CDC.
“Data from public sources like the Social Vulnerability Index are key to deploying the right resources to those who could benefit the most,” the group said. “Therefore, any barriers to accessing these data can also have repercussions on planning and deployment of support services for cancer patients and survivors.”
The Trump administration transition team didn’t immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Across the federal government, webpages and datasets were removed or altered following Trump’s executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and transgender identities called for an “end” to any related policies within the federal government.
Webpages about HIV, LGBTQ+ people and multiple other public health topics were taken down. Some of the terms being flagged for removal include pregnant people, chestfeeding, diversity, DEI and references to vaccines, health and gender equity, according to officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who spoke to ABC News on the condition of anonymity.
Several data tools were also removed or modified, according to Frederick.
Frederick said data collected by a plethora of federal and state agencies play a key role in many of the organization’s reports and publications, including the agency’s “Cancer Statistics, 2025” report and its companion, the “Cancer Facts and Figures” report.
The organization’s reports provide up-to-date trends on cancer occurrence, survival, symptoms, prevention, early detection and treatment, Frederick said.
“ACS develops guidelines for cancer screening and prevention, informed by the latest available data and evidence, to meet the needs of clinicians, the general public, and policy,” he said. “We are very concerned that the changes in data collection and dissemination have the potential to impact these efforts in the future.”
The organization is concerned about how the scope and impact of data removal and potential long-term changes to data collection will impact its research capabilities.
The ACS warning came just days after the medical nonprofit group Doctors For America filed a lawsuit against several Trump administration agencies over its sudden removal of health information from multiple government websites.
The suit targets the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Health and Human Services (which controls the CDC and FDA), asking a federal court in Washington, D.C. to order the government to restore the webpages and datasets.
ABC News has reached out to the agencies for comment.
In a statement to ABC News, the CDC confirmed that changes “to the HHS website and HHS division websites are in accordance with President Trump’s January 20 Executive Orders, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.”
The Office of Personnel Management provided guidance on both executive orders, prompting HHS and divisions to respond accordingly, the spokesperson stated.
In a separate emailed statement to ABC News, the CDC’s SVI coordinator also attributed the online restrictions to the HHS “pause on mass communications and public appearances that are not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health.”
It said the pause will be brief, “to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization.”
In the lawsuit, Doctors for America expressed concerns that the lack of data “creates a dangerous gap in the scientific data available to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, deprives physicians of resources that guide clinical practice, and takes away key resources for communicating and engaging with patients.”
Asked last Friday afternoon if government websites would be shut down to be scrubbed, the president said it wouldn’t be a “bad idea.”
“DEI … would have ruined our country, and now it’s dead. I think DEI is dead,” Trump said. “So, if they want to scrub the website, that’s OK with me. But I can’t tell you.”
ABC News’ Youri Benadjaoud and Peter Charalambous contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has confirmed the first case of severe bird flu in the United States.
The federal health agency said Wednesday that the patient has been hospitalized in Louisiana. No identifying details about the patient were made available.
Genomic data showed the Louisiana patient was infected with a version of the virus recently found to be spreading in wild birds and poultry in the U.S., as well as found in some human cases in Canada and Washington state, according to the CDC.
This is different than the version of the virus found to be spreading in dairy cows and some poultry populations in the U.S.
The Louisiana patient was exposed to sick and dead birds in backyard flocks, although an investigation into the source of the illness is ongoing, the CDC said. This is the first case of human bird flu in the U.S. linked to exposure to backyard flock.
Almost all confirmed cases have had direct contact with infected cattle or infected livestock. Prior to the case confirmed in the Louisiana patient, cases had been mild and patients had all recovered after receiving antiviral medication, according to the CDC and state health officials. One previous case in Missouri was hospitalized, but health officials pointed to other health conditions aside from bird flu infection involved in the patient’s admission to the hospital.
Signs and symptoms of infection in humans often include sore throat, cough, fever, runny or stuffy nose, headache, muscle or body aches, fatigue and shortness of breath, the CDC says. Less common symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and seizures.
Infections can range from no symptoms or mild illness, such as flu-like symptoms, to more severe illness, such as pneumonia that could require hospitalizations, the CDC says.
“The best way to prevent bird flu is to avoid exposure whenever possible. Infected birds shed avian influenza A viruses in their saliva, mucous and feces,” the CDC wrote Wednesday in a press release. “Other infected animals may shed avian influenza A viruses in respiratory secretions and other bodily fluids (e.g., in unpasteurized cow milk or ‘raw milk’).”
The CDC said no person-to-person transmission has been detected and the risk to the general public is low. However, those who work with birds, poultry or cows — or have recreational exposure to them — are at higher risk and should take precautions recommended by the health agency.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a new federal order last week that raw milk samples nationwide will be collected and shared with the department in order to test for bird flu.
The decision came after the bird flu virus was found in samples of raw milk from a California farm, which issued a recall of all of its raw milk products earlier this week. The farm was also placed under quarantine by state health officials.
ABC News’ Youri Benadjaoud contributed to this report.
LW, who asked not to show her face, is a 16-year-old transgender teenager challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatments that have improved her quality of life. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Medical treatments for transgender children, endorsed by major American medical associations and safely used for decades, hang in the balance at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday as the Biden administration and three families with transgender teenagers ask the justices to strike down a state law banning some gender-affirming care for kids.
The landmark case — U.S. v. Skrmetti — comes from Tennessee, which is among 26 states that have moved to prohibit administration of puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy to minors who seek to identify with, or live as, a gender identity inconsistent with his or her sex at birth.
Oral arguments mark the first time the nation’s highest court has openly considered a state law targeting transgender people. It is also the first time an openly transgender litigator, ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, will argue a case in the Supreme Court chamber.
The historic hearing thrusts the justices to the forefront of a cultural debate that has sharply divided the country and tested the limits of science and parental rights.
The outcome of the case could determine access to health care for hundreds of thousands of trans teens and more broadly influence how communities treat transgender people in hospitals, schools and on sports fields.
The government argues that Tennessee’s SB1, which was enacted in March 2023, violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause because it discriminates on the basis of sex to decide who can receive otherwise legal medical treatments available to youth.
“Put simply, an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can,” the administration wrote in its brief to the court.
The Tennessee law expressly allows minors who are not transgender to receive gender-affirming treatments to address a “congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury.”
Denying discrimination, the state argues its law is a reasonable regulation of medical treatment based on its purpose, meant to protect children from potential long-term health risks and possible irreversible changes to the body.
The law’s Republican sponsors claim that contradictory scientific evidence and documented regret among some young people who have transitioned both warrant caution in developing standards of care.
The law also cites a “compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty” and preventing them from becoming “disdainful of their sex.” The government says the text proves an intent to enforce gender conformity.
Hundreds of Tennessee transgender children were receiving treatments before SB1 was enacted, legislators concluded. It is not known how many suffered alleged harm.
The plaintiffs in the case include 16-year-old LW and her parents Brian and Samantha Williams of Nashville. After several years of successful hormone therapy, LW now has to travel out of state to continue treatments she says have dramatically improved her quality of life.
“I feel normal now,” LW said in an exclusive interview with ABC News last month.
“Our state legislature had made such a big deal out of parents rights during COVID, about masks and vaccines — that that’s for parents to decide these medical decisions for their children,” noted Samantha Williams. “And then, they made this medical decision for our child.”
Nationwide, an estimated 300,000 Americans ages 13 to 17 identify as transgender, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Of those, nearly 100,000 live in states that have banned access to gender-affirming medical treatments for minors.
“It’s a case of enormous significance that presents fundamental questions about the scope of state power to regulate medical care for minors, of the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children… and the level of scrutiny that courts should apply to laws that discriminate against transgender people in general,” said Deepak Gutpa, a veteran Supreme Court litigator. “This is a major, major constitutional civil rights issue.”
More than 60% of Americans say they oppose law banning certain types of gender-affirming medical treatment for minors, according to Gallup.
Major American medical associations have endorsed the treatments for more than a decade as part of “individually tailored interventions” to support trans kids and affirm their sense of self. Not all transgender children seek medical care to facilitate transition to another sex.
“It needs to be part of a very deliberate process that involves medical specialists, who are expert at doing this, and, again, are following the science,” said Dr. Ben Hoffman, a pediatrician and president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It all begins and ends with science. This is not about any sort of agenda.”
Clinical practice guidelines from the American Endocrine Society, based on more than 260 research studies, recommend the use of puberty-delaying medications and waiting until a child reaches adulthood to consider gender-affirming surgery.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says the effects of puberty blockers are not permanent if treatment is discontinued. Many effects of hormone therapy can also be reversed. Long-term risks may include fertility challenges and possible harm to bone density, but the group says those risks require further study.
In contrast to the U.S. medical establishment, several European countries, including the United Kingdom, have reversed course on the use of gender-affirming treatments as a standard-of-care for transgender children, citing insufficient scientific evidence of long-term benefits.
“When you look at the totality of the medical research, to me there is more than enough uncertainty and evidence of bad outcomes for kids who’ve gone through these treatments when they reach the later stages in life,” said Tennessee Senate GOP Leader Jack Johnson.
A federal district court sided with the plaintiffs, temporarily halting enforcement of SB1, but the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed. The panel of judges concluded Tennessee had a rational basis for enacting the law.
“Kind of the whole ballgame in the case is the debate about whether there actually is discrimination on the basis of sex,” said Erin Murphy, a Supreme Court litigator and former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts.
“It’s really not,” Murphy argued. “To say providing testosterone to a biological boy and biological girl is the same thing because testosterone is involved — it’s a different treatment that has different risks.”
David Cole, former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Williams family, says the court’s conservative majority will have to confront the legacy of its decision.
“I think there’s no question in 25 years that the court will have recognized that treating people differently because their gender identity is sex discrimination,” Cole said.
“The question is whether the court wants to write a decision will be overturned, you know, in the course of the next 10 years or 15 years,” he said, “or whether it wants to recognize what is going on, which is sex discrimination.”
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2025.
