The possibility of Deion Sanders, "Coach Prime," becoming the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys is generating significant buzz and speculation. Sanders has expressed his love for his current position at the University of Colorado, but his dialogue with Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, combined with a perceived desire for more resources at Colorado, fuel major rumors. The potential hire is seen as a clash of personalities between the charismatic Sanders and the notoriously controlling Jones. Analysts are divided on whether this pairing would lead to success or if Jones' history of undermining head coaches would ultimately hinder Sanders' ability to thrive. The situation is further complicated by Sanders' past statements seemingly against coaching in the NFL, particularly without coaching his sons. Ultimately, this possibility seems to be driven by the potential content value it represents for media as much as any football-related logic. Key Themes & Ideas -- The Intrigue & Potential Collision of Personalities: The primary driver of this story is the clash of two "larger-than-life" personalities: Deion Sanders, the charismatic and influential coach, and Jerry Jones, the hands-on, often meddling owner of the Cowboys. Stephen A. Smith argues that Sanders' strong personality is uniquely suited to deal with Jones: "...unlike a Bill Parcells or unlike somebody else, Deion Sanders has the ability to wrap his arms around Jerry and say, 'Jerry, come here, man, listen to me...'" However, other analysts like Shannon Sharpe believe that Jerry's inherent need for control and his history of undermining coaches will ultimately prevent Sanders from having the autonomy he needs to succeed. Shannon stated, "Jerry ain't going to allow that...it's weaken you...that's what Jerry has always done, he's always emasculated every coach he's had since Bill Parcells." The potential dynamic is viewed as a "reality show inside a reality show," emphasizing the entertainment value of such a pairing, even if it is not necessarily the best fit for the team. Deion's "Out" Strategy & Potential Leverage: Footballscoop highlights Sanders' history of laying the groundwork for departures, citing his comments about a "greater mission" at Jackson State as justification for his move to Colorado. This suggests he could be trying the same with his recent request for more funds for staff and players. The text states, "If Coach Prime leaves Colorado, we'll be told that it wasn't because he wanted to, it'll be because he had to." There's speculation that Sanders may be leveraging his connection with the Cowboys to force Colorado to invest more in the program. As Football Scoop states, "Perhaps Sanders has no plan on leaving but is using his connections with the Cowboys to create a credible threat that he will, thereby leveraging CU into investing at the level he wants/needs." It is also suggested that Sanders is simply interested in the job and not just the leverage. Football Scoop notes that Ed Werder of WFAA-TV in Dallas reported, "Sanders would take the job if offered." Jerry Jones' Past & Pattern of Control: Multiple sources emphasize Jerry Jones' reputation for undermining his head coaches, citing his interference in team-building processes like player acquisition, draft decisions, and staff development. This directly clashes with the need for Sanders to have full control. Shannon Sharpe noted how Jerry gives head coaches titles only and then doesn't allow them to do their jobs. As he stated, "...he gives a head coach the title only but he does not have say...he has nothing to do with free agency, he has nothing to do with the draft, he has nothing to do with the final 53." The "First Take" discussion notes that Jones has repeatedly hired coaches without the backbone to stand up to him and assert their authority and this dynamic would clash significantly with Sanders. There's a suggestion that Jones' ego and need for credit could lead to him firing Sanders even if he achieves a good regular-season record if there is not playoff success, showing that long-term stability might be a problem. Deion's Suitability for the NFL & Potential Drawbacks: While many believe Sanders could connect with and motivate NFL players, there is some skepticism about his ability to make the transition from college to the pros as many successful college coaches do not fare well in the NFL. A key argument is that the way a coach motivates 18-year-old players might not work with seasoned, highly paid professional athletes. The WSJ article stated, "Sanders may be a God to a five-star high-schooler, but can he motivate a locker room of veteran pros, cranky about playing the Giants?" Sanders past statements, that he would not coach in the NFL without coaching his sons, and then going to a job in which his sons would not be present could be seen as a credibility issue. The Media Content Factor: There is an acknowledgement in the Wall Street Journal that much of the push for Sanders as coach is driven by the media frenzy it would create. Jason Gay wryly notes, "It's good for me. I just want the content." It is theorized in the WSJ that Sanders hiring would make the Cowboys even more overcovered, which would be a boon for media. They mention that "ESPN would launch a whole new 24-hour channel" to cover the Cowboys under Sanders. Sanders' "Love" for Colorado: Sanders expressed in the ESPN quote his "love" for Boulder and everything it offers, but many analysts and media personalities do not see this as genuine, viewing it as typical negotiation tactics to get more investment in his program. As Stephen A. Smith puts it, "I don't believe Dion sentiments about Colorado one bit," and that Sanders is ultimately looking for an NFL head coaching position.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is revoking its authorization for the use of Red No. 3 (also known as erythrosine) in food and ingested drugs. This decision, announced January 15, 2025, is based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits the use of any food or color additive found to cause cancer in humans or animals. While studies have not conclusively linked Red Dye No. 3 to cancer in humans, the FDA's action follows evidence of tumors in lab rats. The ban will be phased in, with compliance deadlines of January 2027 for food manufacturers and January 2028 for drug manufacturers.  Key Themes and Information --   FDA Action and the Delaney Clause: The FDA's decision to ban Red No. 3 is a direct result of the Delaney Clause. The clause mandates that any substance inducing cancer in animals or humans must be prohibited. The official FDA statement says, “The FDA is amending its color additive regulations to no longer allow for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs in response to a 2022 color additive petition.” This is not the first time the Delaney Clause has been used for a ban, the FDA previously revoked authorizations for certain synthetic flavors based on the same clause in 2018. The FDA acknowledges that the mechanism of cancer development observed in male rats is not applicable to humans and that relevant exposure levels are "typically much lower than those that cause the effects shown in male rats." despite the lack of evidence of cancer in humans, "FDA must prohibit any food additive shown to cause cancer in humans or animals." The decision was characterized as a "matter of law" (according to a quote by FDA Deputy Commissioner Jim Jones). Background on Red Dye No. 3: Red Dye No. 3 is a synthetic food dye made from petroleum, giving foods and drinks a bright cherry-red color. It has been used in the US since 1907, with FDA approval in 1969. It was previously banned in cosmetics and topical drugs in 1990 due to studies showing it caused cancer in lab rats. However, that ban did not extend to food. The dye is used in a range of products, including candies (e.g., Pez, Jelly Belly), baked goods (e.g., Entenmann’s Little Bites), dairy and frozen desserts, maraschino cherries, some strawberry-flavored beverages, and certain medications (e.g., cough syrups). Although not as widely used as other dyes, the U.S. food and drug industry used over 200,000 pounds of Red No. 3 in 2021. Timeline and Compliance: Food manufacturers have until January 2027 to remove Red No. 3 from their products. Manufacturers of ingested drugs have until January 2028 to comply. This phased approach aims to give companies time to reformulate their products using alternative ingredients. Consumer and Advocacy Group Response: Consumer advocates and health organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) have been pushing for this ban. Groups have submitted multiple petitions over the years, highlighting the lack of logic for the dye to be banned from cosmetics but still present in food. They have expressed that the dye's "purely cosmetic" use is not worth the risk (according to CSP President Peter Lurie) and see this as a "monumental victory for consumer health and safety” (according to Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group). Advocacy groups have noted that there are numerous petitions pending before the FDA dealing with other chemicals in food and food packaging, hoping the incoming Trump administration will address them. Industry Response: Some manufacturers like Abbott (PediaSure) and Dole have already removed Red No. 3 from certain products. Companies like Kellanova and Ferrara have started the process of reformulating their products, with the latter even stating that its candy corn will be made without Red 3 starting the fall of 2025. Industry groups, like the National Confectioners Association, have stated that they will comply but are also concerned about the costs and challenges of reformulating. They would also prefer that the FDA as a national authority sets the food standards versus a "patchwork of state regulations". Concerns have also been raised about the ban, noting that evidence hasn't determined if the dye causes cancer when consumed by humans, indicating the possibility of legal challenges from food manufacturers. Scientific Findings and Health Concerns While a link between Red No. 3 and cancer has not been established in humans, the FDA is required to act based on animal studies showing a "carcinogenic response in rats." Other countries, including those in the European Union, as well as Australia, Japan, China, and New Zealand have already banned or restricted the use of Red No. 3. Aside from the carcinogenic risk seen in rats, “the short term side effects that we that research has shown allergies, behavioral changes, long term ADHD and potentially could be carcinogenic" according to one source, though these effects are based on limited data. There is some concern regarding the threshold for harmfulness, with Lisa Moskovitz noting that many people and children consume less than the amount needed to pose health risks. State-Level Actions: California has already implemented state laws to ban Red No. 3, with the ban also taking effect in 2027. Other states have introduced or are planning to introduce similar bills. California has also taken steps to investigate food dyes and ultra-processed foods. These state-level actions have put pressure on the FDA to also take action. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Stance President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has taken aim at food dyes, with one source quoting him calling them "poisoning our kids". Key Quotes: "The FDA is amending its color additive regulations to no longer allow for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs..." - FDA statement "Today's action by the FDA marks a monumental victory for consumer health and safety." - Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group “The FDA is ending the regulatory paradox of Red 3 being illegal for use in lipstick, but perfectly legal to feed to children in the form of candy,” - CSPI President Peter Lurie. “Food safety is the number one priority for U.S. confectionery companies, and we will continue to follow and comply with FDA’s guidance and safety standards,” - National Confectioners Association statement “There are plenty of people within FDA who are relishing the opportunity for the agency to act to protect us.” - Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group   The FDA's ban on Red Dye No. 3 marks a significant step in the ongoing debate about food safety and the use of artificial additives. While the ban is driven by the Delaney Clause and animal studies, it reflects a broader trend of increased scrutiny on food colorings and a push for greater transparency and consumer protection. The ban is likely to impact numerous products and will require significant reformulation efforts from food and drug manufacturers. It remains to be seen how the industry and the new administration will respond to these regulatory changes and whether they will spark further discussions on the safety of other common food additives.