And a dumpster fire provides warmth.
When the pigeon knocks over the chess pieces, it sometimes accidently makes a good move.
I’m in Canada where we have restricted some food dyes. I miss the old colours of Froot Loops and Smarties (similar to M&Ms, not rockets). But it’s fine because those colourants really do only exist to make junk food look good.
It’s not clear to me the exact scope of what they consider to be artifical dyes though. Is a dye produced by a genetically modified bacteria natural enough?
Conservatives have been saying that Dems want to force them to eat bugs, so it’s a little strange to be tacitly encouraging the use of Natural Red 4 which is made from crushed beetles.
The fun thing about “natural” vs “artificial” dyes is pretty nothingburger in reality. The manufacturers of chemical dyes, scents, etc. just generate the chemical by whatever means. If it’s a “natural” flavor/scent/color it is derived from something like a beetle or a flower. If it’s “artificial” it is derived via a chemical process. The end product is the same.
Reminds me of some years back when Starbucks answered the cry of, “but we don’t want artificial flavors/colors in our coffee!” so they started using a red dye for one of their drinks that was derived from crushed up beetle shells. People then freaked out, “I don’t want to drink beetle shells!!!”
TL;DR: The end product is the same, whether it be natural or artificial. The real concern, is if the product should really be consumed at all.
The Big Brains like RFK Jr. likely lack the mental capacity to understand such concepts, so all the dyes will become “natural” and stick around, and just increase the number of purée’d parakeets. Basically, another shitty cup game.
TL;DR: The end product is the same, whether it be natural or artificial. The real concern, is if the product should really be consumed at all.
This is hot crap. They are different chemicals, the end product is not the same and you’re spouting misinformation.
Most of the artificial dyes that people have banned in countries other than the USA are derived from petrochemicals. Natural dyes have been in use far longer and have been shown to have fewer negative health outcomes.
Eg. Red dye containing bugs (cochineal, E120) has no known health effects except to an extremely small percentage of the population whom are allergic to bugs, hence it is marked as an ingredient when used, to alert those with allergies. Its replacement alternatives are:
- red dye #2 (amaranth, E123) which was made from coal tar, and is now made from petroleum byproducts. It is a suspected carcinogen and is banned in most of the world including the US.
- red dye #3 (erythrosine, E127) was first extracted from coal tar and is derived from phenol, currently extracted from petroleum byproducts and it is a known carcinogen and restricted heavily in what it can be used in since the early 1990s in every developed nation except the USA, until this very announcement by the FDA and RFK jr which will bring the USA in line with the rest of the world’s protections. California also separately banned it in October 2023.
- red dye 40 (Allura red) is an entirely synthetic dye invented by a chemical corporation in 1971 by azo coupling between diazotized 5-amino-4-methoxy-2-toluenesulfonic acid and 6-hydroxy-2-naphthalene sulfonic acid. I don’t know what that means in order to determine if its feedstocks are petrochemicals, but mice studies showed bowel disorders and DNA damage which caused several countries to ban it over the years, however it’s currently believed to be safe if the maximum daily limit is adhered to.
And that’s just red dye.
Did this worm farm just do something decent?
It says “remove them”, not “forbid them”. The Nation’s food supply is going to be dunked in ammonia before you can eat it.
Adding a “/s” because given the times this sounds weirdly plausible…
I’m going to assume that worm brain will move to ban more than the programmatic petroleum-based additives and ban anything that has a synthetic sounding name.
This is very much a stopped clock situation.
Also, how are they gonna regulate and enforce this, considering the FDA is gonna stop administering food safety?
Canada and the EU did that year’s ago.
Despite jr being a massive fuckwit, this is actually good
Good luck selling the salmon at this point if you do that
https://thekitchenknowhow.com/is-salmon-dyed/
Farm-raised salmon would be fine.
Or ‘black’ olives.
Black olives are not dyed black.
Well, ripe olives are naturally black, yes. But many, if not most “black” olives you find on the supermarket shelves are dyed. Look out for “Iron(II) gluconate” on the ingredient list.
Jesus Christ, talk about brain worm logic.
Not everything with a name you think looks funny is some synthetic, bad for you ingredient on par with petroleum-based dye.
FFS, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_gluconate
It’s literally an iron supplement that people take for iron deficiency and made by just dissolving iron in acid and gathering the participate and it’s completely freaking safe.
God damn, learn to science.
Shit, are you going to complain about acetylsalicylic acid too?
The point I was making is that (most) black olives are indeed dyed black. Nothing more, nothing less.
That does not describe a process using black dye. That describes oxidation during the curing process.
Does oxidation result in discoloration? If so, they’re dyed! (/s)
How are you going to enforce thay without inspections, nunbnuts?
YouTube influencers will submit tips to the FDA food dye hotline. Suspects will be immediately sued by the FDA and have to prove their innocence in court. In the mean time, all employees report to RFK ADHD work camps to break rocks searching for healing crystals.
They aren’t! Honestly. I assume that this is just virtue signaling?
I would think that if I wasn’t so certain that RFK Jr was actually a complete moron
Just what I was thinking.
Wow. Finally this administration does something that seems like a good idea.
Nobody tell them they will be following the EU’s lead by doing this.
Except they will probably not regulate natural dyes, or even force listing of the replacements. Some of the replacements will not be healthy.
So like usual, it looks good at first sight but will sicken and poison many children and adults instead.
food allergies too!
I have a relative who developed a deadly allergy to dill suddenly, as in her throat starts closing if she’s in the same room as a pickle deadly. She has a lot of difficulty contacting companies to find out if dill is one of the “natural flavors” in their products, because many will simply stonewall any attempts to learn if she can safely consume their product
Definitely hope for the best that we’ll actually get healthy food from this, but expect the worst in that they will fuck it up and somehow make us sicker.
If we can’t have lead paint, we can always have lead food dye /s
Ehh… natural food colorings are often a lot more allergenic then the artificial ones. So if somebody has a allergy to annato or cochineal some such this could be bad news for them.
Yeah, it’s extremely rare when I read “Trump administration…” followed by an action I agree with. Broken clock and such.
Dyes are not responsible for hyperactivity in children. “Artificial” does not necessarily mean unsafe, nor does replacing them with “natural” versions make the food any safer. You might applaud this because you think artificial dyes shouldn’t be in food, and maybe you’re right. But it’s still unscientific horseshit which will accomplish very little and undermine the FDA by wasting time. The reasoning is unsound, which just makes it easier for the corrupt to alter the outcome to serve their own agenda.
I overall agree that the concerns are overblown and sometimes outright fake, and that artificial colors aren’t inherently any more dangerous than any other ingredient
I also agree that Kennedy and his ilk are really using this as a smokescreen for all the other bullshit they’re up to
That said, I’m largely in favor of banning artificial dyes.
Pretty much the only purpose they serve is to make unhealthy processed junk food more attractive, so I think we should be discouraging that.
There is some evidence that some artificial dyes may be harmful in some ways. In the grand scheme of hazardous chemicals I’m expected to in my life they’re near the bottom of the list of things I’m concerned about, probably falling somewhere in between alcohol and grilled meat (neither of which I’m planning to cut out of my diet anytime soon, but I also enjoy those things so I’m more willing to accept the risk, I’m pretty ambivalent about whether or not my food is exactly the right color)
I agree with everything you said, but my point is that if they use a lie to justify the regulation, they can modify the lie to justify anything. Maybe Goya uses a specific dye that is important to their profits, so they make a donation and they get a special exception.
Remember the scene in A Knight’s Tale where the Prince is like “I looked it up and this guy is legally a knight because I’m the prince and I said so.” Ok, we’re all cool with that because we want William to be a knight, and we think chivalry and honor should matter more than lineage. That squares with our moral code, but it violates the legal system they had established for the movie. It’s a problem, because next the prince could be like “And also in my research, I found an old law that requires I sleep with all your wives.”
If RFK can ban dyes because blue makes kids hyper, next he can ban msg because chinese food makes him feel bloated, or he can ban vaccines because thiomersal causes autism. When the “because” is bullshit, it’s bad whether we like the outcome or not.
It’s really dyes in general. There are really very very few cases where dyes should be in food anyway.
If we get Fanta that tastes as good as in the EU, I’m okay with this
Good joke, but no that is too expensive, how would companies make so much money otherwise? You have to think about them too, you know?!
NGL, I do love my neon orange soda…
I haven’t thoroughly researched this, but a quick search might suggest there’s more to the story, but I don’t know if this is outdated information or not. Anybody with insight?
I want to be clear that I’m not arguing in favor of food dyes. I don’t think food should be dyed at all. And I agree we need to thoroughly research everything going into our food. The FDA needs to be stronger and more proactive.
But it also needs to be science-based in its methodology. It needs to be transparent and consistent. Nowhere in that link does it talk about hyperactivity in children, which is the justification that RFK cites in announcing the ban. He doesn’t mention cancer risks or hypersensitivity, probably because he doesn’t want to be pressured to ban every carcinogenic substance in the food supply. And that’s exactly the problem I have with all of this. He’s picking and choosing what to ban and using fiction to justify how selective he’s being. That’s precisely how you corrupt a process. And the best way to introduce corruption is to do it to get a palatable result.
Thank you for a thoughtful and sensible clarification. Yeah, RFK seems to be a jackass. I don’t think I’ve seen evidence to suggest that food dye causes hyperactivity. But since RFK has opened the subject of hyperactivity, maybe he’d rather look at evidence surrounding sweeteners…?
Hyperactivity is one of those nebulous pop-health terms that boomers fell for back in the 80s and 90s. It was used to market Ritalin and Adderall, both of which treat actual diseases, but became trendy drugs to “normalize” your unruly children. Sugar, artificial dyes, satan, skateboarding, Bart Simpson, and Nintendo were all blamed for disobedient crotch goblins acting out. They couldn’t use the same violence their parents relied upon, because a bunch of bleeding heart (now known as “woke”) scientists determined that abusing children is bad for them.
RFK never stopped believing the bullshit, even after is was thoroughly debunked.
Yeah I don’t think you know what the word"research" means
You can’t eat dyes in food when you have died from a pandemic
That’s honestly the least unhinged policy he’s likely to push.
People are use to the color. Dyes get banned. People see what the food looks like without the dyes. People get weirded out over it - like the green ketchup from Sherk promotions. People eat less of it. Health improves due to people eating less (diet and food moderation ftw).
RFK claims success.
natural dyes still exist (which doesn’t imply they’re necessarily healthier; just that if banning artificial dyes that doesn’t mean there will be no food colouring)… afaik australia has much stricter regulation around some of this, and tbh you can barely tell the difference… some products are slightly less vibrant, but honestly if you’re not directly comparing them you don’t even notice
Yeah except we’ll all be inhaling even more VOCs and working in mines so is it really a win?
I’ll take any win I can get.
