Within the US, evidently because it's less likely to "cause allergy" according to this paper. Looks like there was a big plea to keep unnaturally bright red food coloring on the market. It's an auto download, so be forewarned.

https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf

However, around the same time, Secretary of Agriculture John R. Block was pressing his counterpart at the Department of Health and Human Services not to ban the dye (Food Chemical News May 28, 1984). He wrote, “Some segments of the agricultural community are quite dependent on Red Dye #3 in the processing and marketing of certain commodities, especially canned fruits. I have assured the affected industry that their concerns would be made known to you, as well as my own concern...” And in 1989, Congress, at the behest of growers and packers, temporarily prohibited the FDA from banning the dye (Washington Post July 19, 1989). Twenty-six years later, the FDA still has not acted. The harm that Red 3, an acknowledged animal carcinogen, is likely causing far out-weighs the minor nuisance entailed in banning the dye. It is worth noting that Red 3 has been seen as invaluable by some makers of maraschino cherries, but other brands are dyed with Red 40 or (shockingly) no added coloring, and some brands (Del Monte, Giant) of canned fruit cocktail contain cherries colored with natural colorings (un-fortunately, the natural colorings used, carmine or cochineal extract, can cause severe allergic reactions). The food industry and public would survive a ban quite easily.