• Tikiporch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • rivan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the pigeon knocks over the chess pieces, it sometimes accidently makes a good move.

    • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

    • CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Marion Nestle isn’t just AN expert. She is THE expert in food science. You would be hard done by to find a more qualified and well spoken fount of knowledge.

      • Brandeis University, lecturer in biology, 1971-73
      • Brandeis University, assistant professor of biology, 1974-76
      • UCSF School of Medicine, lecturer in biochemistry and biophysics, 1976-84
      • UCSF School of Medicine, associate dean, school of medicine, human biology programs administrative director, medical scientist training program, 1976-86
      • UCSF School of Medicine, lecturer in medicine, 1979-84
      • UCSF School of Medicine, acting director, medical scientist training program 1983-84
      • UCSF School of Medicine, lecturer in family and community medicine, 1984-85
      • UCSF School of Medicine, director, John Tung/American Cancer Society clinical nutrition education center, 1984-86
      • UCSF School of Medicine, adjunct associate professor, family and community medicine, 1985-86
      • UCSF School of Medicine, associated faculty, Institute for Health Policy Studies and Institute for Aging Health Policy, 1983-86
      • Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, staff director for nutrition policy, senior nutrition policy advisor, managing editor, Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health (1988), 1986-88
      • New York University, School of Education, professor and chair, nutrition and food studies, 1998-2003
      • New York University, professor and director of Public Health Initiatives, 2003-04
      • New York University, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, c. 2004—
      • New York University, honorary professor in the Department of Sociology, 2006

      She literally wrote the book on how nutrition is politicized and obfusticated by capital.

  • Hayduke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Two things he stands for that I am in alignment with, banning artificial food dyes and pharma ads. If he succeeds in both those things, he can still fuck off, but do I want those to succeed.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ban food dyes, artificial or not, or at least limit them somewhat. People have this illogical knee-jerk reaction to the words artificial and natural as if those imply some kind of value judgement. There’s tons of natural stuff you don’t want anywhere near you and plenty of artificial stuff that’s super beneficial, people need to stop assuming natural means healthy and artificial means unhealthy.

      Also yes, ban fucking pharmaceutical ads.

      • Hayduke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. I debated specifying artificial or what not. I would argue that beet powder is a dye. Nothing wrong with it. The problem exists when the extremes are exercised within the definitions. Companies can’t just color in the lines. Gotta find some way to corrupt it for profit.

      • ryannathans@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure but petroleum derived colours contaminated with carcinogens can fuck right off because of at least two obvious reasons. Join us in banning them

          • ryannathans@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know why I have to google this for you, but here you go https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/

            This review finds that all of the nine currently US-approved dyes raise health concerns of varying degrees

            EU, Australia and NZ have banned these dyes derived from coal and petroleum because animals consuming them got cancer, or other health issues. Given safe alternatives exist that aren’t derrived from petroleum, there’s no reason to keep using them.

            • FenderStratocaster@lemmy.worlddeleted by creator
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know why I have to google this for you

              This is a social media website. I was conversing. If you didn’t want to respond, you didn’t have to.