Joe Schwarcz PhD | 20 Mar 2017
Much to the public’s dismay, the Mars and Murray Company stopped production of red M&Ms because of a health scare concerning Red Dye Number 2, which at the time was the most common red food dye in use. This dye was never used in M&Ms but the company decided to withdraw the red candies “to avoid consumer confusion and concern.” It isn’t clear exactly what confusion Mars and Murray was worried about since the Food and Drug Administration banned Red Dye Number 2 in January of 1976. So if red M&Ms had stayed on the market, it would have clearly meant that the suspect dye was not used. Perhaps the Company was concerned that people might think it was using an illegal dye. The story becomes even more bizarre when the evidence upon which Red Dye Number 2 was banned is examined. In the early 1970s there were a couple of small, poorly carried out Soviet studies that suggested the dye caused thyroid tumours in male rats and stillbirths and deformities in females. These were followed by some flawed American studies, which even if correct, would have implied that a human would have to drink 7500 cans of colored soda a day to reach the levels of dye that had been given the rats. Canada was unconvinced by the American studies and never banned Red Dye Number 2. Various rumours began to float around about why the red dye was actually banned, with the most popular one suggesting that it was actually an unapproved aphrodisiac. Cleverly Mars and Murray never addressed this issue, anticipating the eventual return of the red candies. This actually happened in 1988 after the furor about the toxicity of Red Dye Number 2 had died away. With great fanfare the red M&Ms were reintroduced, with some ingenious advertising hinting at the supposed aphrodisiac properties.
Keywords:
As a seasoned expert in the field of food additives and safety regulations, my extensive knowledge in the subject matter allows me to delve into the peculiar case of Red Dye Number 2 and its association with M&Ms. This incident, involving the cessation of red M&M production due to health concerns related to Red Dye Number 2, is a fascinating chapter in the history of food safety.
Firstly, it's crucial to establish the context surrounding Red Dye Number 2. This dye was the subject of a ban imposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January of 1976. The decision to halt the production of red M&Ms by the Mars and Murray Company, even though Red Dye Number 2 was not used in M&Ms, was ostensibly driven by a desire to avoid consumer confusion and concern. However, the reasoning behind this concern becomes elusive when considering that the FDA had already banned Red Dye Number 2.
To comprehend the circ*mstances leading to the ban, one must examine the scientific evidence that prompted the FDA's decision. In the early 1970s, Soviet studies, albeit small and poorly conducted, suggested a link between Red Dye Number 2 and adverse health effects in rats, including thyroid tumors in male rats and stillbirths and deformities in females. Subsequent American studies, though flawed, added fuel to the controversy. It's noteworthy that even if the American studies were accurate, the implied dosage for humans to experience similar effects would have been astronomically high—7500 cans of colored soda per day.
Interestingly, Canada chose not to follow suit in banning Red Dye Number 2, expressing skepticism about the American studies. This divergence in regulatory decisions adds a layer of complexity to the narrative, emphasizing the subjective nature of food safety assessments.
Moreover, rumors circulated about the true reasons behind the ban, with one prevalent theory suggesting that Red Dye Number 2 was an unapproved aphrodisiac. This intriguing speculation, although never directly addressed by Mars and Murray, contributed to the mystique surrounding the incident.
The saga takes another twist in 1988 when red M&Ms made a triumphant return to the market, capitalizing on the fading concerns about the toxicity of Red Dye Number 2. The re-introduction was accompanied by clever advertising that playfully hinted at the supposed aphrodisiac properties, adding a touch of humor to the narrative.
In conclusion, the case of Red Dye Number 2 and its connection to red M&Ms exemplifies the intricate interplay between scientific evidence, regulatory decisions, public perception, and corporate strategies in the realm of food safety. My in-depth understanding of these concepts allows me to provide a comprehensive analysis of this intriguing episode in the history of food regulation.
