US will ban cancer-linked Red Dye No. 3 in cereal and other foods
(bloomberg.com)419 points by toomuchtodo 3 days ago
419 points by toomuchtodo 3 days ago
Removing dyes and healthier food in general is one of RFK's stated goals so they'd call this a win. You need better news sources.
It’s not always easy to keep up with the Republicans’ evolving positions.
For the past century, they told everyone that it was none of the government’s business what people choose to eat. Now it suddenly is.
It does have a whiff of trying to mold the citizenry towards a physical ideal. Fitter, happier, more masculine energy.
This is the old "at least Hitler made the trains run on time" thing again.
I'm all for removing dyes from food, but if the tradeoff is bringing back polio, no thanks.
It seems the group that is 'all about science' doesn't want to investigate big pharma. It's a strange world.
see: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377...
I read about this right before covid in Wired magazine. Now, they lick the assholes of all the big pharma companies and anyone wanting more science are 'deniers', turning it into a relgion.
No it's not - the topic is healthier food. If someone said "I bet Hitler[0] will reverse this thing that makes trains run on time" and someone said "actually Hitler loves trains running on time", that would be a fair response.
This is the old "the person my news sources repeatedly tell me to dislike is like Hitler".
[0] Mussolini, no?
Between all the snarkyness (is that a word? I'm not a native speaker :-D) I think there's a point here. With all the regulations the EU has put up, and the bureaucracy that came with them, I'm really happy that we got food and its ingredients pretty tightly under control and locked down. Glad to see that other countries are prioritizing consumer safety, too.
But Musk, RFK Jr. and others were precisely the kind of people that were advocating for this kind of regulation to take place. Remember the thing about replacing seed oils (eugh) with beef tallow? I really don't think they are against this kind of regulation--on the contrary.
A quick search shows RFK is in favor of replacing seed oils with beef tallow? Is that supposed to be a good thing? What am I missing?
Just do some research on what seed oils where used for just some decades ago, and the extreme processes they go through to make them somewhat edible and not too unpalatable. It's just a byproduct of corporations trying to reduce costs at the expense of our health. They'd do it with literal shit if they could find the way.
"according to claude" makes it hard for my mind to give much credence to the post in a way very different from "according to Wikipedia" with a link. I intend this politely, but if I wanted to know what claude would output I would ask it myself, during the phase of the moon when the way I've chosen to word the prompt has the best chance of working.
FD&C Red 40 (Allura Red AC): Linked to hyperactivity in children in some studies, although evidence is mixed. Theoretical concerns regarding disruption of cell membrane integrity, potentially leading to increased permeability and toxicity.
FD&C Yellow 5 (Tartrazine): Some in vitro studies suggest potential neurotoxic effects, though human evidence is lacking. Theoretical concerns regarding modulation of neurotransmitters, potentially leading to behavioral changes.
FD&C Yellow 6 (Sunset Yellow FCF): Similar to Yellow 5, some in vitro studies raise concerns, but human evidence is limited. Theoretical concerns regarding binding to DNA, potentially leading to mutagenic effects.
FD&C Blue 1 (Brilliant Blue FCF): Theoretical concerns regarding exacerbation of respiratory conditions like asthma. Theoretical concerns regarding increased cell membrane permeability, potentially leading to toxicity.
FD&C Blue 2 (Indigo Carmine): Limited human studies, but some animal research suggests potential neurological impacts. Theoretical concerns regarding triggering or exacerbating immunological reactions.
Read food labels.
It'd be great if people stopped just copy-pasting stuff from LLMs and then responding to that instead of other real human people.
It's not a foregone conclusion that just because people haven't ingested things before doesn't inherently mean that ingesting them is bad. Saying it is is itself a pretty obvious logical fallacy. Now I'm not saying at all that ingesting oil, even byproducts after multiple rounds of synthesis, is a good idea. But it's not impossible to synthesize something edible out of something inedible, so the fact that oil is inedible doesn't mean that all oil derivatives are as well.
You have some valid points, but this mostly reads as exasperated defeatism that doesn't offer any actionable solutions.
Meanwhile cigarettes, which are also cancer linked, are legal with a warning and some picture on them.
And alcohol, which is also linked to cancer, is legal, with a warning on it.
And (non-self driving) automobiles, which kills tens of thousands of Americans yearly, with no warning or pictures, are legal.
Activities that reward being sedentary - a known factor in lethal cancers and disease - have no warning labels. When is my PS5 gonna warn me about playing video games?
While Americans are dying from a range of cardiovascular disease and cancers it's comforting to know that red M&Ms or red fruit punch won't be one of the causes.
Why’s there no avenue for receiving risk appropriate compensation funds for having increased personal risk of death by consuming something a reasonable expert in the industry could consider dangerous?
If I skirt the law on technicalities to cause harm to an employer for example, such as knowingly implementing trivial security encryption on critical transactions, I feel I could be liable for damages. Why is this a game of spot the problem and then get off with a warning before going to the next preplanned technicality workaround that usually also causes cancer but will buy them a few years until the process repeats?
Shouldn’t mass risk of life be considered a terror level charge? Or rather, instead of saying no to that question because it didn’t appear to meet X criteria, why aren’t we finding ways it could meet that criteria? For example if it needs a political reason, we should ask how this could be a politically motivated decision rather than saying this doesn’t appear to meet any political agenda. That’s how the laws are always completely one sided abused against normal people anyway in a more extreme stretch than my example. I think it’s reasonable to do a reasonable-amount of application back.
Because the people en masse have not successfully come together to demand this.
What makes companies more powerful than the people is not that companies actually have more power. They don't. It's that they concentrate the power they do have into the hands of a small group of decision-makers, which allows it to be deployed effectively. By comparison, the people are divided, disjointed, disorganized, and distracted, and as such typically fail to come together to demand specific changes they agree on.
Idk I think there is a ton of overlap between industry and the highest levels of government. They wouldn’t want pesky things like human well-being to get in the way of profit so they get their hands on some of the levers of power and mitigate their liability one way or the other. It’d probably take a class action lawsuit in the kind of case you describe to be brought to justice.
Most people wont like this, but the answer is because courts care about if the harm actually occurred in fact, not if there is risk that harm might occur.
You cant sue another driver because they risked crashing into your car.
[flagged]