Comment by legitster

You really don't want to know about GRAS (Generally recognized as safe) then. 700 food substances were grandfathered into the food supply chain and most new things are self-affirmed by the company selling them.

I don't disagree with you, but we don't have heavy scrutiny on the existing and natural chemicals that are in the food chain from all of the plants that we eat.

There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left.

Proving something safe is logically equivalent to proving that it is not unsafe, which is the same thing as proving a negative, which cannot be done. I cannot prove there is not a teapot circling Mars, and I cannot prove that even the most inert ingredient, at some dose, will not harm you.

Anyone who has lived in California knows this absurdity more intuitively than most people, because California's stupid laws adopt the logic you are proposing, and basically everything in daily life is labeled as cancer-causing.

There is no way to establish a food as "safe".

Health outcomes are noisy, especially if taken over a long time. Peer reviewed studies are often flawed in various ways and most scientific studies lack the statistical power to be inconclusive.

The fear based approach to human diets can not work. We have to accept risks in our lives if we want to eat at all.

Natural food is not safe. Many natural foods that people eat, specifically plants, contain natural toxins and carcinogens that would probably not pass your threshold for "safe".[1]

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/

I don't know about "peer-reviewed gold-standard studies," but what you've described is basically how the EU does it – what goes in food must be proven safe.

It's the opposite of the US approach, which is to ban (only) proven-harmful ingredients.

I don't expect US food-safety laws to become more strict in the next four years, but who knows, maybe the dead-worm guy will surprise us.

It’s impossible to prove a negative.

Have those other been proven safe? Is it possible they too cause cancer?

I'd like to point out that eating charred meat has a clear link with colon cancer, so we can't simply appeal to nature for safety.

> that have much lower risk scores (as they are from plant and animal sources)

This is a fallacy. If anything, there's more reason to expect that a substance evolved to serve a biological function (that happens to be red) would have biological effects in humans than a substance developed specifically to be red and be biologically inert.

That's an argument against all food dyes including natural ones.

Given color improves the enjoyment of food, I'd argue it is useful though.

"Presentation of food" is not "nothing useful". People who see basically eat with eyes. Like plate/food ratio can make you overeat. Or some food can be totally fine, but if it is just made to look bad for example rotten/expired it can be vomit inducing. Just like if someone says you just ate something bad, if you think what you eat is harmful the body will react

If there is no food coloring at all would we eat better? I bet yes. But we can't get there now. It will not pass any vote

Color is important for appeal and flavor. Otherwise we would never color food.

Proven safe against what though?

I'm a big proponent of food safety regulation, but we have to acknowledge that there's no way to prove something is safe against all possible harms it might do. There will always be a risk in food. The question is how much risk will we tolerate?

Well, I guess you should start by banning all fruits and vegetables, because there's evidence that they contain toxins and carcinogens, and we're not sure if they're "safe"[1].

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/

It's not extraordinary to state that every single thing we eat[0] can have a study designed around it to show that it might cause cancer -- that is how studies and chemicals (things we eat) work.

[0]Except water, maybe. I'd bet if you shoved enough water into a rat at minimum you could observe an increase in tumor growth rate though.

It's a strawman argument often brought up to argue against banning potentially cancer causing foods.

It's also not true, since many foods - most vegetables, for example, or many types of fiber - do the complete opposite, and reduce your risk of cancer.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes for this because it seems to me a highly valid stance. Why do we allow mostly unchecked, highly processed junk food in our society, only banning items that have a high level of risk of being poisonous, if at all? Especially since the main target of a lot of it is children.

Shouldn't we take the opposite approach? Make it very hard to use highly processed unnatural products, to the point where it's cheaper and easier for companies to fall back on less processed "clean label" ingredients.

I work in (well, adjacent to) the F&B sector and I can tell you that every large company knows exactly what clean food means, why it's healthier, and where to source the ingredients, and that they have equivalent food products using these either already on shelves, or waiting to be produced if there's a shift in consumer desires.

The reason that they don't already use them - the reason you mostly only see advertising for processed foods - is because the more highly processed a food is, the higher the profit margins for companies. I've seen it stated as a rule that every level of processing gives a 2x profit margin. So if you can process an item 3 times, you'll 6x your profit margins (obviously a rule of thumb rather than law).

Its regulation has nothing to do with its cancer causing properties. Why are you even bringing that irrelevant point here?

Who is being absurd now?

> alcohol is a choice.

Thousands of ppl die every year from being other end of DUI. I didn't choose to be on the road with ppl who choose to drink. It was forced on me.

> what foods do you regularly eat that depend on having a specific color?

Probably all of them. We are super sensitive to colors.

Red meat and fish like tuna and salmon have carbon monoxide and sodium nitrate treatment just to keep them red because that's how people think they can judge quality.

> Consumers will pay up to $1 per pound more for darker colored salmon compared to salmon with lighter hues, according to research by DSM, a company that supplies pigmenting compounds to the salmon feed industry.

Cheese

Tuna

Pickles

Oranges (apples as well, but I can't find an old article)

Wasabi

Apricots

Ginger

Salmon

https://www.treehugger.com/foods-youd-never-guess-were-artif...

> Hyperbole.

> 1. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

> 2. A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.

> 3. Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device.

From DuckDuckGo, quoting Wordnik, quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

Yup, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of dyes one could use to get red that are completely harmless. Although they may be more expensive, I have no clue.

B1 and B12 it should be.

As for what that does [1], wet brain.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke_encephalopathy

If someone you know is an alcoholic, try and get them to take b vitamins.

But have those dye alternatives been proven safe assuming an equally rigour test of "well, this might cause cancer but we can't actually prove it"?

If you are asking what would putting B12 (or B1) in alcohol do: prevent serious irreversible deficiencies that are not only horrible for the person themselves, but people as a whole, one way or another.

Call it risk reduction.

But this is to do with food I eat. I don't feed it to other people.

Here's a better question, then: what health and safety decisions do I get to make on your behalf. What can I dictate to you that you can't do, or have to do? Can I mandate that you have to run 5 miles every day? It will be good for you to do, and it will impact others by increasing your productivity and lowering the cost of your healthcare on society. Is it reasonable that I should be able to use the threat of violence to induce you to exercise? Because that's all that regulation is: it's an outline of behaviors for which the threat of violence is a legitimate response.

I think it's more about overextending risk assessments

Yes, of course. Humans do not directly eat plastic. At least nobody I know chews on plastic plates or cups.

But that does not mean that humans don't eat any plastic. Tiny pieces of plastic gets transferred to the food by contact with plastic containers. Some processes like microwave ovens, radically increase the amount transferred as well. Previously it was thought that these microplastics would just be eliminated from the body through typical waste functions, but evidence is increasingly mounting that The microplastics actually stay in the body long term and destroy cells they come in contact with. Given we have found nontrivial levels of microplastics in all of our vital organs (including testicals!), that's a scary proposition.

A crude analogy might be germs. Humans don't eat germs directly either, but by nature of their size and invisibility to us, we end up consuming plenty of them.

Humans constantly consume microplastic. This is a bad faith argument.

It will be interesting to see the conflict between the industry lobbyists stuffing trump's pockets with cash and RFK Jr. who is extremely opinionated. My guess is that either RFK Jr. folds and makes compromises whenever trump asks him to in order to stay in his position or he gets thrown out on his ass for standing up for what he believes. I really don't know how firmly RFK Jr will hold to his convictions, but I do know that Trump has no problems getting rid of anyone who refuses to be blindly loyal to him.

Increased food regulation is only one part of his platform. And it's something that Democrats have wanted for a long time.

He has a ton of other stuff much more aligned with the right

There are in fact several food dyes in the EU that are "banned" in the US.

Using the word "banned" though is misleading. Most things are not approved because no one has petitioned for approval, not because they were found harmful. This happens more in Europe than the US though because the US has GRAS.

It is.

Approved in EU* but not US:

Quinoline yellow (E104), Azorubine/Carmoisine (E122), Ponceau 4R (E124), Patent blue V (E131), Green S (E142), Brilliant Black BN (E151), Vegetable Carbon (E153), Amaranth (E123), Brown FK (E154), Brown HT (E155) and now Red Dye No 3 (E127)

Approved in US, but not in EU:

Orange B**, Citrus Red No. 2 and FD&C Green No. 3.

* Some individual EU countries ban some of these

** Not used despite approval

Its not just that. Different ideas on how to regulate.

To add something to food in the EU, you need to prove FIRST it causes no harm. It follows the precautionary principle.

In the US, the FDA allows "similar compounds" rapid approval, allowing for the expansion of what's allowed without testing.

Here is the probably not too bad chatGPT summary

United States: Risk-Benefit Approach

General Approach:

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) operates under a risk-benefit analysis framework. This means additives can be approved if the benefits (e.g., preserving food, enhancing flavor) outweigh the potential risks when used as intended.

In some cases, manufacturers can self-certify an additive as "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) without requiring FDA pre-approval. This system relies heavily on the manufacturer's responsibility and scientific consensus among qualified experts. Approval Process:

Data Submission: Manufacturers submit safety data for new additives, but the level of evidence required can vary. For GRAS substances, companies may use existing studies or published research instead of conducting new, comprehensive tests.

Rapid Approvals: The GRAS system allows additives to be introduced more quickly, provided there is no immediate evidence of harm. This has led to criticism that some substances enter the market without sufficient independent oversight.

The differing approaches to food additive regulation in the EU and the US stem from distinct legal frameworks, principles, and processes for evaluating food safety. Here's a breakdown of how it works:

European Union: Precautionary Principle

General Approach:

The EU adheres to the Precautionary Principle, which means a substance must be proven safe before it is approved for use.

Manufacturers or entities seeking approval for a food additive must provide comprehensive scientific evidence to demonstrate that the additive is harmless to humans. Approval Process:

Scientific Evaluation: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducts a detailed risk assessment. Applicants must submit robust toxicological and safety data, including studies on metabolism, potential toxic effects, and exposure assessments.

Re-Evaluation: Even after approval, all additives are subject to periodic re-evaluation to ensure ongoing safety as new scientific evidence emerges.

"Glyphosate has been assessed 3 times in the EU. The first assessment resulted in initial approval of glyphosate in the EU in July 2002. The second assessment, which was carried out between 2012 and 2017, led to the first renewal of approval.

The most recent assessment was carried out between 2019 and 2023 by Member State Competent Authorities, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and showed that there is currently no scientific or legal justification for a ban. This led to the renewal of approval of glyphosate in 2023.

Under the conditions of approval and by following good agricultural practices, glyphosate is considered not to pose any harmful effects on human health or unacceptable effects on the environment."

https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-...

Roundup (glyphosate) is in wide use in Europe.

> family business

In the organised crime meaning of the word family

Trump is actually very, very whatever will get Trump elected or whatever was last whispered in his ear.

Trying to find a coherent philosophy from Donald Trump is impossible.