Red Food Coloring is Bad for Hummingbirds. (1 Viewer)

Sheri L. Williamson Wrote the Peterson Guide, on page 35 i5 states, "Field tests have shown that hummingbirds prefer plain sugar water over dyed solutions".

And, lifted off her website at mindspring:
It turns out that the red food dyes used in some feeder solutions may be much more dangerous than we previously suspected. Studies in Japan (Tsuda et. al 2001) found that relatively low doses of Red #40, the world's most popular food coloring, caused pre-cancerous DNA damage in the colons of mice. Crunching some numbers revealed that the concentration of dye that produced these changes was significantly lower than that present in a hummingbird's daily ration of bright red "instant nectar"! Other red dyes (especially Red #3, a.k.a. erythrosine) also showed alarming effects in laboratory tests. For a thorough analysis of the situation, including references to several pertinent studies, see Stacy Jon Peterson's FAQ page, "Should I Add Red Dye to My Hummingbird Food?"

Manufacturers of "instant nectar" products have been outrageously reluctant to respond to the concerns of hummingbird enthusiasts. Perky Pet's approaches to the issue have ranged from offering dye-free and "light" versions of their "instant nectar" to defending it with unfounded claims that the unnamed dye (Red #40, according to company representatives) is "USDA approved" and "non-toxic and harmless to hummingbirds." It's actually the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that approves food additives, and no research has ever been done to determine the safety of any food additive, including Red #40, for hummingbirds or any other wild bird.

The more responsible approach would be to replace artificial red dyes with natural colorants, and, after a couple of decades of complaints from hummingbird experts and concerned enthusiasts, Perky Pet took a tentative step in this direction by introducing a liquid concentrate colored with plant and insect extracts. Unfortunately, hopes of a change in philosophy at the company appear to be unfounded. In May of 2005, I had the following e-mail exchange with representatives of Perky Pet:

"2001". "2005".
Things have changed considerably since then, and Sheri has posted comments about this subject since then.

What's changed since 2001 or 2005, Mark? Certainly not the evidence against synthetic red dyes. If anything we have a stronger case against them with the 2007 British study that found that Red #40 (a.k.a. Allura Red) in combination with sodium benzoate (also used in "instant nectar" products) increased hyperactivity symptoms and lowered IQ in children.

You're correct that the effects of dyes and other artificial additives on hummingbirds have never been proven. They've never even been tested on hummingbirds (which is where the urban myth comes in). But why should they be tested on hummingbirds? After all, sick and/or dead people aren't required to ban a food additive or revise its approved uses. Tests on lab animals are the standard by which regulatory agencies around the world assess possible health effects on humans, and Red #40 and Red #3 have been tested extensively on lab animals with alarming results.

This page summarizes the scientific evidence and cites the relevant studies:


For hummingbirds, the danger is in the consumption rates, which are huge compared to normal human consumption rates and even greater than the experimental dosages shown to cause damage in the test animals.

So no, we don't have to kill a statistically valid sample of hummingbirds by force-feeding them these additives to make a very strong case that they're a very bad idea. This was my position in 2001 and 2005, and it's still my position.

To be completely blunt, the Snopes article is wrong (even though I wrote them several years ago to try to get them to update it), the Operation RubyThroat article is wrong, and this Bird Watcher's Digest article is wrong.

Carjug, keep up the good work.

Listen, I live in Brazil and here the best option I believe its the TRILL - NECTAR FOR HUMMING BIRDS.
But when I mix it up with water, it gets pink~red.
http://www.mercadoanimal.com.br/loja/site/uploads/img_produtos/00000000021_1.jpg
Is it good?
I am confused now...

I will stand by the idea of using the qualifier "probably". If challenged to prove that it is harmful can we prove it?

bruleke - imo, no - it is probably not safe if it is turning red.

bruleke, Trill is almost certainly similar to the majority of "instant nectar" products available here in the U.S.A. The red color probably comes from FD&C Red #40 (vermelho allura AC) and/or FD&C Red #3 (eritrosina). Even if Trill contains a natural colorant, it would still be an unnecessary purchase. All wild hummingbirds need from us is plain white cane sugar, 1 part sugar to 3 or 4 parts water. This solution is similar to the nectar of hummingbird-pollinated flowers, which provide the birds with energy but very little nutrition (they get everything else they need from eating insects and spiders). Light brown or tan sugar (turbinado) is not safe to use because it contains iron, relatively small amounts of which have been proven to cause disease and death in hummingbirds.

Mark, "probably" is a justifiably conservative qualifier, but claiming that there's "no evidence" just because it hasn't been tested on birds, as you did in post #10 of this thread, is playing into the hands of the companies pushing these products. By these standards the regulatory agencies in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK banned Red #40 based on "no evidence" simply because they didn't insist on human testing, which I'm sure you'll agree is unreasonable.

You are completely right Sheri - I should have placed a qualifier in that post number 10 - there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other that I have seen.

bruleke said:

Listen, I live in Brazil and here the best option I believe its the TRILL - NECTAR FOR HUMMING BIRDS.
............
Is it good?
I am confused now...

Click to expand...

Even in Brazil the best -and by far cheapest and safest- option is plain sugar mixed with water in the prescribed ratio. No need to wonder if or if not the coloring is or is not bad. It is not required or even beneficial, no reason to use it other than it allows to charge you more money.

Ulli

But isnt sugar bad for the hummingbirds since they can cause certain types of fungus?
(I read the box and it says it contains natural coloring)

Not at all. Natural nectar is nothing but sugar and water. I would urge you to read the lable of the product you are using - you will find at least one, if not several words ending in "ose" - sugar.

Let me be clear:
1) I would NEVER encourage or support the use of any coloring of any kind in hummingbird syrup - there is no need for it, it serves no value.
2) I agree entirely, the colorings we are currently using and have used in the past have a very high probability of being dangerous for the birds.
3) I do NOT want to see a study that shows a few hundred, a few or even one bird died to demonstrate that these chemicals will cause harm. I sincerely wish the pet food companies would remove the dye from the product (for that matter I wish they would take the product off the market), but unfortunately the dollar is the only thing that will get through to these guys and right now too many people are convinced the color is needed to attract these birds

I urge the use of the qualifier only because I have not seen anything that would convince the average store manager that there is a problem with this product. I fear that, if challenged to "prove it" we look like the fools and strengthen the position of Perky Pet and others.

You convinced me. You and everybody here in this thread.
I dont want, either, to see any study of dead humming bird!

By the way, I must take a picture of my bedroom. It is made for hummingbirds.
Well, not my bedroom... its a small area outside my bedroom. Dont know the word in english!

Thanks a lot guys.

Speaking personally—as something of a skeptic here—I don’t require formal lab testing of hummingbirds before taking the “red food coloring is bad for hummers” hypothesis as God’s truth, but would accept reasonably solid anecdotal evidence, at least on a tentative basis until something better came along. But, as far as I can tell, there is no such evidence, none at all (except for vague statements about tumors on the bill which as far as I can tell no one—not even non-skeptics—seem to take seriously). How come, if the red coloring is so harmful there have been no reports of sick (or dead or dying) hummingbirds around feeders? Or maybe there have been such reports, & they just haven’t come to my attention for some reason? If so, I world like to hear about them. Believe it or not I have an open mind on the subject & am willing to be instructed.

I understand that people feel strongly about the red food coloring & that something of a propaganda war is being waged against the nectar companies. I have no problem with this as I don’t like the companies either, which in my view are exploiting ignorance to sell a useless product (I mean, welcome to the capitalist system!).

Finally, speaking personally again, I respond poorly to emotional language (“force feeding”, “dead hummingbirds” & the like) & am sorry that the discussion has started to go down that road.

bruleke said:

But isnt sugar bad for the hummingbirds since they can cause certain types of fungus?
(I read the box and it says it contains natural coloring)

Click to expand...

It's honey (mel das abelhas) that is linked to hummingbird deaths. White sugar is sucrose, which is the most abundant sugar found in the nectar of hummingbird flowers. Natural coloring is better than artificial, but the product is still a waste of your money. Please do post photos from your pátio(?)!

fugl said:

How come, if the red coloring is so harmful there have been no reports of sick (or dead or dying) hummingbirds around feeders? Or maybe there have been such reports, & they just haven’t come to my attention for some reason? If so, I world like to hear about them. Believe it or not I have an open mind on the subject & am willing to be instructed.

Click to expand...

The first thing you need to do is read Stacy Jon Peterson's in-depth review of the medical literature. Then ask yourself these questions:

How often do you see a sick, dying, or dead hummingbird?

They get sick and die of other things all the time, but how often do you see one drop off a feeder or find a carcass? For me the answer is only a handful of times in the last twenty years, even though I spend a lot of time at feeding stations that host thousands of hummingbirds (no, I'm not exaggerating). The odds are stacked heavily against seeing a hummingbird sick, dying, or dead of any cause because:

• Most North American hummingbirds are long-distance migrants that are more likely to die in the months they spend away from feeders than the days to weeks they spend using them.
• Even relatively sedentary species such as Anna's spend more time away from feeders than on/near them.
• Wild animals tend to hide illness to avoid showing vulnerability to predators and rivals, so a casual observer would be unlikely to detect a mild illness or even a terminal one in its early stages.
• A sick hummingbird drawn to the easy energy offered by feeders may be driven away (or, in rare instances, killed) by healthy, aggressive rivals.
• A moribund or dead hummingbird is a tiny object easily obscured by vegetation and easily carried away by scavengers.

If you did see a sick, dying, or dead hummingbird, how would you know what its problem is/was?

In addition to easily-refuted urban myths that the San Diego Zoo/Audubon Society/some university did a study and found that red dye(s) did/did not cause cancer/bill deformities/liver tumors/etc. in hummingbirds, there have been claims of first-hand observations of dye-related problems by wildlife rehabilitators, self-styled hummingbird experts, etc. Unfortunately, none of these incidents seems to have been followed up with a necropsy and histopathology report, so direct evidence of harm to hummingbirds from these additives remains elusive (but is not necessary anymore than human mortality and morbidity is necessary to get or keep potentially hazardous chemicals out of our own food supply.)

Though a representative of Perky Pet once tried to frame it as hummingbirds taking a swig of red stuff and dropping dead, the issue is not acute toxicity. It's long-term/chronic exposure to unacceptably high intake rates of chemicals shown in laboratory and clinical studies to have deleterious effects at smaller intake rates over shorter time frames. These effects include genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive and behavioral toxicity, etc., which can lead to reduced reproductive success, lower offspring survivorship, and diminished longevity. All of these potential effects should be of concern to dispassionate conservationists, but none would be expected to manifest as noticeable mortality around feeders.

If we were to determine that artificial colorants in hummingbird feeder solutions did cause disease and premature mortality in hummingbirds but were not correlated with population declines, would we abandon the campaign against these additives or continue it on purely emotional/ethical grounds?

As for emotional language, if people are going to insist on "proof" or "conclusive evidence" of harm to hummingbirds, they need to do so with a full understanding of what that would entail as well as why it is as unnecessary (and unethical) as human studies in this context. The propaganda war is being waged by, not against, the companies that produce these products [link link], which is why we are out there fighting back with science.

The issue that's got me feeling a bit exasperated here (besides having my opinions misrepresented) is setting the evidence standard so much higher for hummingbirds than for humans, pets, or livestock. I have trouble understanding why evidence compelling enough to spur regulatory action on behalf of human health would not be equally compelling in light of the vastly greater intake rates of hummingbirds, at least to anyone without a financial interest in "instant nectar" products. (I know, I know - it happens all the time - I just have trouble understanding it.)

Perhaps what is required is not proof that the dyes do or don't harm the birds, but that that they do or don't attract the birds.

If people are convinced the stuff attracts them, you're going to need strong proof that it's bad for them if you want them to stop. If they're convinced it doesn't help then they'll happily start buying uncoloured mixes or mixing their own.

It should be a lot easier to prove either way than toxicity, and I assume someone has already done it.

pshute, there are four basic problems:

1. The red liquid is undeniably attractive both to hummingbirds (though not necessarily more so than red on the outside of the feeder) and to people. There are informal studies that suggest that high concentrations of dye make the solution less palatable to hummingbirds, but the initial attraction is what impresses the human consumer.
2. Use of dye became entrenched decades ago, when hummingbird feeders were often homemade and had little or no red on the outside, and some people still believe it's an essential part of the recipe even for homemade sugar water (I used to believe it myself).
3. Some manufacturers and retailers would like to get their customers' money every week instead of once every few years for a new feeder, so they market "instant nectar" products very aggressively.
4. Many people think something they have to buy must be better than something they make at home.

Members of the hummingbird community in the U.S. and Canada have been working for many years to raise awareness that dyes are unnatural, unnecessary, and potentially harmful to hummingbirds. Manufacturers have responded by offering "lite" and colorless versions (basically just very expensive boxes of sugar) and even some with natural colorants, but the original bright red, artificially colored formulas are still very popular. I've discussed these issues with a number of manufacturers and retailers, and the bottom line is that a product indistinguishable from homemade sugar water just isn't as appealing to customers as a bright red liquid.

There's a growing international movement to ban artificial food colors, but failing that our best hope may be to use the facts of hummingbird biology plus research showing harm to lab animals at high intake rates to make the case that artificial colorants in products intended for hummingbird consumption violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Either way, it would force the manufacturers to switch to naturally derived colorants such as fruit and vegetable extracts.

Deleted due to just rerunning statements previously already made in other posts

"Kiss"System

carjug said:

I was at Wal*Mart getting a couple of cakes of suet, when I saw a woman pick up a little $3.50 bottle of red hummingbird nectar. "Nuh-uh", I said, "use plain sugar water". She started to look at me like I was nuts, and to tell me she knew her own business, when the magic words left my mouth.

"The red food coloring is bad for the birds."

I went on to explain that plain table sugar in a 1 to 4 cut with water is the prefered solution for feeders. She left the silly little bottle on the shelf.

It ain't often, but you get to win sometimes!

Click to expand...

I believe in the "KISS"system.(KEEP IT SIMPLE SYSTEM) I dont know if it hurts them or not but i do believe putting unsessary chemicals in ourselves or the birds is uncool!I used the dye myself in the past but i found out that the birds will still go to feeders if they got red in the feeder itself.So why buy the dye or use it at all,ITS UNESESSARY.Its extra work and money to boot.Like i said "KISS"system!(just my view):t: