Editorial: When it comes to Skittles and kids, better safe than sorry

Better safe than sorry. When it comes to kids, that should be a no-brainer for the makers of candies such as Skittles, Pez, Sour Patch Kids and Nerds.

Those sweets contain five chemicals that have been banned in Europe after they were linked to a range of serious health problems. But despite reformulating the candies in Europe with safer alternatives of similar cost, the candy makers are still selling the potentially harmful versions in the United States.

Assembly Bill 418, introduced by Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, would prohibit the sale in California of candy with any of the five chemicals: brominated vegetable oil (BVO), potassium bromate, propyl paraben, Red Dye No. 3 and titanium dioxide.

The chemicals are used to make the candies’ colors more vivid. But they have been linked to a higher risk of cancer, nervous system damage, hyperactivity and other neurological problems.

In 1990, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned Red Dye No. 3 from use in lipsticks, powders, blushes and skin care lotion. Yet, amazingly, it has been allowed to remain in food we eat.

In May, the Assembly passed Gabriel’s bill by a 54-12 vote. The Senate should follow suit and send it to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.

If you are thinking the candy makers will do the right thing on their own, think again. They are pulling out all the stops in Sacramento to try to block the bill so they can continue their risky ways.

They argue that the FDA approved the drugs for use in food products decades ago and that the five chemicals’ links to health risks have only been established in lab animals.

We’ve been down this road before.

Plastic manufacturers made the same argument with bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used for nearly four decades in a wide range of children’s food and beverage containers. In the 1960s, the FDA vouched for its safety, too. But four decades later, the federal government expressed concerns over “studies that have revealed subtle effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals.”

The National Institutes of Health expressed concern that BPA exposure in infants may lead to problems with brain development, behavior and a variety of diseases, including breast cancer and prostate cancer. In 2011, California banned BPA in bottles and sippy cups, and the FDA followed suit in 2012.

Now it’s candy makers who are putting sales before consumer safety.

In 2016, Mars announced that it would “remove all artificial colors from its human food products” because consumers were seeking more natural ingredients. But it never followed through and has since reversed course.

Mars’ website now says that “we found that many of our consumers across the world do not, in fact, find artificial colors to be ingredients of concern. For that reason, we will continue to prioritize our efforts to remove artificial colors in Europe — where consumers have expressed this preference — but will not be removing all artificial colors from our Mars Wrigley portfolio in other markets.”

In other words, never mind the safety risks.

If candy makers won’t do the right thing, lawmakers must. The scientific studies provide sufficient concerns that California should not keep putting its children at risk from further exposure to the five chemicals.