114
FDA bans red dye No. 3 from foods
(apnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
114 points (100.0% liked)
news
24087 readers
858 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
So Red 3 has been shown a long time ago to be carcinogenic, which is the reason why the FDA did not allow it to be put in cosmetics and externally applied drugs in 1990. There is a law that states that carcinogenic additivies cannot be added to food. But the FDA allowed that to happen for 35 years, for some reason.
The data was out there, though, so the food industry, I assume, has been using it for at least 35 years with no regards to the evidence of its carcinogenic properties. So what we have here is an industry that, when left to self-regulate, knowingly adds carcinogenic chemicals with no nutritional value to food, and is not stopped from doing so by the FDA. No surprises there, considering it's the US.
But then again, other reports from the UN and the WHO say that the whole thing is overblown and Red 3 presents no cancer risk. Who am I supposed to believe, then?
Can there be two sides to this story? Has the journalist who wrote this article checked the relevant studies? Am I supposed to have the expertise to peruse the scientific papers myself and figure out who is right? Is this what scientific journalism is supposed to be like? Should two sides be presented in this kind of situation? Does Red 3 fucking cause cancer or not? Is anyone right? Does truth even exist? What is reality?
This is maddening. This is why people become skeptical of science. When a supposedly objective truth can be made this nebulous, who the hell am I supposed to believe?
The problem with science is that so many people are taught and believe it is a purely objective way to quantify every possible phenomena, and a method to provide a final truth to a question.
Science is a debate, and science is a dialectical process. But both, or especially the latter, is partly more complex than explaining science as the ultimate rational pursuit of truth but also abjectly rejects the neoliberal concept of ending history.
Science cannot be dialectical because this proposes that science isn't final, and if science isn't final then nature isn't final, and if nature isn't final then how can society be final?
There's obviously more on top of this but that's a lot of my feelings behind the anti intellectual movement and why the (liberal) opposition to it isn't doing itself many favours.
That's true. I'm fairly well educated and I don't feel like I'm completely ready to have this discussion. I can't even conceive of the idea of laying this burden on the public to figure it out by themselves. Science is sold, especially by our current mainstream journalistic standards, as the ultimate truth, unless it presents an inconvenient scenario. It's a tool that proves things beyond any doubt. It's also used as a controversy and outrage factory which alternates between telling us that coffee, eggs and wine are either going to kill us or save our lives. Rinse and repeat, let the clicks come in.