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
How are you going to enforce that without inspections, numb nuts?
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.
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…?
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…
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?
