RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?
In the past, US consumers have resisted their favorite foods changing to natural dyes. Attitudes might shift if Maha converts the entire industry
You're viewing a single thread.
The answer is yes. Everyone around me thinks the crap they allow in our food is bad for us. Europeans done have the same issues we do with food because they’re much more regulated.
There are probably lots of ways we need to improve our food supply and our health, but focusing on food dyes is at best a trivial part of that.
It starts with the research, the science, to identify actual harmful things and truthful labeling so consumers can be aware and have a choice. It almost certainly reins in marketing and lobbying . This is where he needs to spend time, yet is doing the opposite. Cutting out research, regulations, truthful labeling will have far more harm than tilting at windmills could possibly benefut
Everyone around me thinks the crap they allow in our food is bad for us.
Without evidence of course. Just the same lack of critical thinking that RFK has. It "seems bad" and "it's chemicals".
Europeans done have the same issues we do with food because they’re much more regulated.
BS.
Avoidance of completely unnecessary chemicals is just reasonable. I don't need to be sold on not adding something that isn't needed. Why would you need proof that being marketed to with bright colors is not worth a health risk?
You're focusing on things that in moderation didn't actually have any negative effects. At the same time, harmful chemicals from deep frying foods that are actually with diseases get a free pass
I agree with banning any dye that has evidence of harm, but let's not get it twisted. Americans are unhealthy because of eating too many calories, too much processed meat, too much fried food. This change won't make any difference
Dyes are unnecessary and should be removed anyhow. No one here is saying everything else you mentioned is less important. All these things would make a difference.
I mean, flavor is unnecessary too, we can drink powder for sustenance
An absolute dogshit comparison. You're really here simping for corporations trying to trick you with dye
I don't eat those dyed processed foods, but most dyes are not harmful when eaten in small quantities, the quantities in foods.
Whatever you do, make sure everything is proven harmful before you consider stopping eating it
I can, as an individual, limit my consumption. Other people have differing ideas
it's this administration. so i'm gonna guess it's because 'pride colored' candies and other foods use them.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/
Just one of many studies that raise concerns. Yes, they pump rats full of a fuckton of these chemicals that no normal human being will ingest. You could say the same thing about tons of other chemicals that have turned out to be carcinogenic. We don't have the funds to give rats/animals normal doses over the course of a normal human lifespan, so pumping high amounts to shorten the duration is the next best thing.
Red has proven to be the most difficult color to synthesize due to how red colors oxidize or break down in the environment. The natural red colors all fade rapidly which makes them poorly suited for industrial purposes.
It's why carmine is a godsend because it's both stable but it breaks down in the environment. It also has an incredibly long history as a food dye and has proven to be safe. Unfortunately it's derived from insects so it's regarded as being... gross? Weird how consumers prefer health consequences over bugs
Well, that and it makes it non-vegitarian. I remember when Starbucks used insect derived dyes and vegetarians were pissed off when they weren't told their drink technically had bug in it.
That said, we eat bugs (and poop, etc) all the time since there's a legal amount you can let slip into food when processing. So eh.
One of the most striking quotes I’ll always remember from a documentary is “natural peanut butter has more bugs in it because natural ingredients always will”. When you’re eating processed peanut spread, the ingredients have gone through a lot more filtering and processing steps and allowed insect parts are lower.
I still eat natural peanut butter though
Gotta love that extra crunch!
And protein. It helps make the peanut butter slightly leaner and have slightly more protein!
Hydrogenated oil vs having to mix? Mix, definitely, unless physical limitations preclude it.
Is the food industry doing this research the way fossil fuel and tobacco did research?
I dont know but didn't big tobacco become a big food company and it then used its discoveries on addiction to enhance its food products
Like a true satan
Are you referring to Philip Morris/Kraft?
ETA idk if Staryucks is still doing it, but several years ago, they were adding extra caffeine to their coffee to make it more addictive.
Lol 😆 @ staryucks
They mostly divested but the addictive technology remains in their scaly hands. But yes its something like that because they still own some food producers
Yes, they pump rats full of a fuckton of these chemicals that no normal human being will ingest
"Dosage make the poison" comes to mind. If it's safe below those levels... Then it's not harmful. "BUT IT MIGHT BE" is not a coherent argument. I'm not necessarily against banning a substance that has little functional use out of an abundance of caution - but lets not pretend that it's going to save any lives since it's very unlikely to do so.
Just because some turn out later to be carcinogens doesn't make it a valid way to find them.
Sir, this is Lemmy. If the corporations do it, it's bad no matter what it is.
A red dye was recently banned because it was found to be carcinogenic. How many others are as well but just haven't been looked at closely enough.
A red dye was recently banned because it was found to be carcinogenic.
That is very oversimplified...
Carcinogenic is not "true/false" it is probabilistic. The EU has a lower standard of evidence required for banning a substance than the US. In the EU if there was any evidence at all of it being carcinogenic in animal studies (whether in realistic quantities over realistic time periods or not) means it will be banned (I'm over-simplifying some here as well). The US standards are different.
You could say that this is a better standard as it is more cautious. I may agree. But you can't say "it was banned because it was carcinogenic" without a lot of qualifiers.
There are plenty of qualifiers, thats literally why other countries BAN them.
