Comment by VanillaCafe

Comment by VanillaCafe 3 days ago

10 replies

> For anyone wondering why it takes so long to actually switch this stuff out

One counterpoint is do we really NEED to have brightly colored foods? It's a hard problem if you need a food to be bright red. But, that has to boil down to strictly to improving sales, right? Hypothetically, if all the artificial food dyes were banned, then all food companies would be on the same level playing field.

dylan604 3 days ago

Color is definitely something that catches a person's eye, so if you have a "food product" that needs extra to convince someone to buy it, color is a way to do it. You can't taste it before purchasing. You can see and smell it, so they push those levers as much as they can.

  • makapuf 3 days ago

    Mandate big font "contains carcinogens" label when your food contains this colour. Then let the buyer choose whether s/he finds this shade of bright red attractive or not.

    • paulryanrogers 3 days ago

      Multiplied by the hundreds of decisions people make every day and now you know why we have the FDA.

      People cannot become experts for every decision they must make.

    • dylan604 3 days ago

      You mean like the big ugly boxes on cigarettes?

      • makapuf 2 days ago

        Maybe, and I see your point, but there are few alternatives to having them on a cig pack, whereas you could not dye your food and remove this label. As a consumer, the choice is rather simple (for me at least)

  • KennyBlanken 3 days ago

    So in other words: no, we don't need it, particularly since people need to consume less ultraprocessed foods, not more.

thatguy0900 3 days ago

Visuals have a pretty big impact on food. I wonder how many foods would just look disgusting without any food dyes. Reminds me of butter companies trying to pass legislation to make margerine companies unable to dye their product to look like butter

  • [removed] 3 days ago
    [deleted]