• ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

    • Sludgehammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      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.

    • CallateCoyote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      Yeah, it’s extremely rare when I read “Trump administration…” followed by an action I agree with. Broken clock and such.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    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.

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 days ago

      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)

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        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.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 days 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…

    • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 days 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.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    14 days ago

    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.

  • m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    14 days 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.

  • Hayduke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 days 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
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days 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
        2
        ·
        14 days 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.

  • chaitae3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    So they found an expert in the field whose last name is Nestle. It’s not confusing at all.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    14 days ago

    For once I’m actually down with something he’s said. A broken clock strikes right twice a day or something kinda thing.

    Making Mountain Dew Code Red and Flamming Hot Cheetos bright ass fucking red has always seemed so pointless to me. The only reason people would find uncolored food unappealing would probably come down to conditioning since we were kids. In the US we have literally always had food that was heavily colored all over the grocery store and has always been hard to avoid. And colorized beverages in cans I always found incredibly dumb as 80% of people will never even see the liquid in the first place since they drink it right out of the can.