26
RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?
(www.theguardian.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 25 Jul 2025
26 points (90.6% liked)
News
31396 readers
1382 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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
Without evidence of course. Just the same lack of critical thinking that RFK has. It "seems bad" and "it's chemicals".
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/09/08/did-tobacco-companies-also-get-us-hooked-on-junk-food-new-research-says-yes/
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