I. Californians Overwhelmingly Want and Need Synthetic Dye Warnings

Aragón: The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) thanks the California Department of Public Health (CDPH or the Department) for the opportunity to testify at the April 11, 2023 hearing on our petition (P-22-001) that seeks to require warning labels on all foods and dietary supplements that contain synthetic food dyes sold in California. [...] Almost all the studies in mature animals that measured behavioral changes and/or changes in the brain found effects of the synthetic food dyes at doses lower than the NOAELs used by the US FDA for the derivation of the ADIs. [...] Office of Disciplinary Council of Supreme Court.25 The First Amendment affords limited protection to commercial free speech (speech concerning the potential sale of a consumer good).26 When the government requires a disclosure in the commercial context, such as the warnings at issue here, the Supreme Court’s test in Zauderer requires the disclosure be (1) strictly factual and uncontroversial, (2). [...] It represents the most comprehensive and rigorous assessment undertaken to date of the relationship between synthetic dyes and effects on child neurobehavior.35 OEHHA affirmed this fact in its response to peer reviewer and public comments: As regards other reviews of the information, OEHHA’s review was more inclusive and rigorous…As we describe in the Introduction, OEHHA did not limit the review t. [...] The office considered conflicting studies regarding the effects on both humans and animals, systematically weighed the evidence, and conclusively determined that “the scientific literature indicates that synthetic food dyes can impact neurobehavior in some [human] children.”52 The dye warnings therefore differ from acrylamide warnings because the state of California assessed the evidence and expli.