RED FLAGS FOR RED 3: HOW THE OVERTURN OF CHEVRON WILL SHAPE AMERICA'S HEALTH.

The article focuses on the regulatory and legal implications surrounding the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 2025 order revoking the use of synthetic food dye FD&C Red No. 3, a petrochemical-derived color additive linked to thyroid cancer in male rats. This revocation is grounded in the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which mandates a zero-tolerance policy banning any food or color additive found to induce cancer in humans or animals. Historically, under the Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. framework, courts deferred to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes like the Delaney Clause; however, the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned Chevron, returning statutory interpretation authority solely to the judiciary. The article analyzes how courts, using tools such as ordinary meaning, statutory context, canons of construction, and legislative history, may interpret the Delaney Clause post-Chevron, concluding that despite the shift in interpretive authority, courts are likely to uphold the FDA’s revocation of FD&C Red No. 3 based on the clause’s clear language and legislative intent. The article also notes that regulatory actions like this FDA order may be affected by executive policies such as the 2025 regulatory freeze, leaving the future of such food additive regulations uncertain. [Extracted from the article]