From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Canada is falling behind on food safety by continuing to allow seven synthetic food dyes that the United States and several other jurisdictions are banning due to clear health risks.

The United States is banning nine synthetic food dyes linked to health risks, but Canada is keeping them on store shelves. That’s a mistake.

On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced they would ban nine petroleum-based dyes, artificial colourings that give candies, soft drinks and snack foods their bright colours, from U.S. foods before 2028.

The agencies’ directors said the additives presented health risks and offered no nutritional value. In August, the FDA targeted Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2 for even quicker removal.

The good news for Canada is that Orange B was banned here long ago, in 1980, while Citrus Red No. 2 is barely used at all. It is allowed at two parts per million in orange skins. Also, Canada reduced the maximum permitted level for other synthetic dyes following a review in 2016.

The bad news for Canadians is that regulators will keep allowing seven dyes that the U.S. plans to ban, with one possible exception. Health Canada will review Erythrosine (called Red 3 in the U.S.) next year. The FDA banned the substance from cosmetics and drugs applied to the skin in 1990 but waited decades to do the same for food.

All nine dyes targeted by the FDA have shown evidence of tumours in animal studies, often at doses achievable through diet. Over 20 years of meta-analyses also show each dye increases the risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in eight to 10 per cent of children, with a greater risk in mixtures.

At least seven dyes demonstrate broad-spectrum toxicity, especially affecting the liver and kidneys. Several have been found to show estrogenic endocrine effects, triggering female hormones and causing unwanted risks for both males and females. Six dyes have clinical proof of causing DNA damage, while five show microbiome disruption in the gut. One to two per cent of the population is allergic to them, some severely so.

The dyes also carry a risk of dose dependency, or addiction, especially when multiple dyes are combined, a common occurrence in processed foods.

U.S. research suggests the average child consumes 20 to 50 milligrams of synthetic dyes per day, translating to 7.3 to 18.25 kilograms (16.1 to 40.2 pounds) per year. It might be less for Canadian kids now, but eating even a “mere” 20 pounds of synthetic dyes per year doesn’t sound healthy.

It’s debatable how to properly regulate these dyes. Regulators don’t dispute that scientists have found tumours and other problems in rats given large amounts of the dyes. What’s less clear are the implications for humans with typical diets. With so much evidence piling up, some countries have already taken decisive action.

Allura Red (Red 40), slated for removal in the U.S., was previously banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. However, these countries were forced to accept the dye in 2009 when the European Union harmonized its regulations across member countries.

Nevertheless, the E.U. has done what Canada has not and banned Citrus Red No. 2 and Fast Green FCF (Green 3), as have the U.K. and Australia. Unlike Canada, these countries have also restricted the use of Erythrosine (Red 3). And whereas product labels in the E.U. warn that the dyes risk triggering hyperactivity in children, Canadians receive no such warning.

Canadian regulators could defend the status quo, but there’s a strong case for emulating the E.U. in its labelling and bans. Health Canada should expand its review to include the dyes banned by the E.U. and those the U.S. is targeting. Alignment with peers would be good for health and trade, ensuring Canadian manufacturers don’t face export barriers or costly reformulations when selling abroad.

It’s true that natural alternatives present challenges. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University, wrote that while natural alternatives, such as curcumin, carotenes, paprika extract, anthocyanins and beet juice, can replace synthetic dyes, “they come with trade-offs: less vibrancy, greater sensitivity to heat and light, and higher costs.”

Regardless, that option may soon look better. The FDA is fast-tracking a review of calcium phosphate, galdieria blue extract, gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extract and other natural alternatives to synthetic food dyes. Canada should consider doing the same, not only for safety reasons but to add value to its agri-food sector.

Ultimately, we don’t need colour additives in our food at all. They’re an unnecessary cosmetic that disguises what food really is.

Yes, it’s more fun to have a coloured candy or cupcake than not.What’s less fun is cancer, cognitive disorders, leaky gut and hormonal disruptions. Canada must choose.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Health Canada has indefinitely paused its plan to allow unlabeled cloned meat in grocery stores after thousands of Canadians, prominent figures, and industry leaders condemned the move.

Health Canada is pausing its plan to put unlabeled cloned meat in Canadian grocery stores, following public outcry.

In a November 19 update on its website, Health Canada announced an indefinite suspension of the decision to remove labels from cloned meat products after thousands of Canadians condemned the plan online.

“The Government of Canada has received significant input from both consumers and industry about the implications of this potential policy update,” the publication read. “The Department has therefore indefinitely paused the policy update to provide time for further discussions and consideration,” it continued, adding, “Until the policy is updated, foods made from cloned cattle and swine will remain subject to the novel food assessment.”

In late October, Health Canada quietly approved removing labels from foods derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) clones and their offspring. As a result, Canadians buying meat from the grocery store would have had no way of knowing if the product was cloned meat.

Many researchers have documented high rates of cloning failure, large offspring syndrome (LOS), placental abnormalities, early death, and organ defects in cloned animals. The animals are also administered heavy doses of antibiotics due to infections and immune issues.

Typically, the offspring of cloned animals, rather than the cloned animals themselves, are processed for human consumption. As a result, researchers allege that the health defects and high drug use does not affect the final product.

However, there are no comprehensive human studies on the effects of eating cloned meat, meaning that the side-effects for humans are unknown.

News of the plan spread quickly on social media, with thousands of Canadians condemning the plan and promising to switch to local meat providers.

“By authorizing the sale of meat from cloned animals without mandatory labeling or a formal public announcement, Health Canada risks repeating a familiar and costly failure in risk communication. Deeply disappointing,” food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University Sylvain Charlebois wrote on X.

Likewise, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warned, “Health Canada recently decided that meat from cloned animals and their offspring no longer needs a special review or any form of disclosure.”

“That means, soon you could buy beef or pork and have no idea how it was bred,” she continued. “Other countries debate this openly: the EU has considered strict labelling, and even the U.S. has admitted that cloned-offspring meat is circulating.”

“But here in Canada, the public wasn’t even told. This is about informed choice,” Lewis declared. “If government and industry don’t have to tell us when meat comes from cloned animals, then Canadians need to ask a simple, honest question: What else are we not being told?”

Health Canada recently decided that meat from cloned animals and their offspring no longer needs a special review or any form of disclosure. That means, soon you could buy beef or pork and have no idea how it was bred.

Other countries debate this openly: the EU has considered… pic.twitter.com/zCnqJOpvf3

— Dr. Leslyn Lewis (@LeslynLewis) November 14, 2025

Likewise, duBreton, a leading North American supplier of organic pork based out of Quebec, denounced the move, saying, “Canadians expect clarity, transparency, and meaningful consultation on issues that directly touch their food supply. As producers, we consider it our responsibility and believe our governing food authorities should too.”

According to a survey conducted by duBreton, 74 percent of Canadians believe that “cloned meat and genetic editing practices have no place in farm and food systems.”