316
FDA proposes ban on additive found in sodas
(www.cnn.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 03 Nov 2023
316 points (99.4% liked)
News
35944 readers
639 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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
Alternative title: FDA proposes finally catching up with Europe on food safety
Let's not get ahead of ourselves
The FDA is maybe thinking about possibly becoming interested in catching up to EU food standards.
Fixed.
In one of thousands of positions.
Just because the EU does something first doesn't mean they were right to
Aside from a few World Wars, they've been right more often than the US.
Regarding public safety restrictions? Or are you just making the mistake that anything the EU does is progress that we will catch up to eventually?
Your phrasing implies that you're looking to pick a fight. You can do that elsewhere, I've got more important things to do.
clearly not
Also, I'm never looking for a fight. I'm looking for people to say "yes sir" and do what I say
Erroring on the side of public safety seems a whole lot better than erroring on the side of companies only interested in profit.
Fearmongering ain't freedom. This is America. We don't trade freedom for safety like bitch ass Europeans, we ride rockets like bucking broncos for fun. Life is cheap, freedom is priceless.
But genuinely, sometimes the EU is just overly cautious. And in the case of the point I was making, again, just because the EU made a regulatory decision doesn't mean they were right to do so.
You can't use MOST of our candy flavorings in the EU. Do you genuinely think our candy is poisoning just because it's artificial, or is that just the naturalistic fallacy talkin
Absolutely, I mean just look at the new privacy bill, which the very latest revision has them hijacking website certificates so they can spy on people as they please.
However, when it comes to food safety, the EU has been far ahead of the US. The US basically dismissed a bunch of concerns back in the 1970s, and outside of California they're only now just reviewing them and accepting that they aren't that great. Things under the classification "Generally Recognised As Safe", or GRAS, which are unlikely to cause accute harm when taken in normal doses, however for many of them there is strong evidence of harm when taken frequently over a long time.
Suffice it to say, food in Europe is generally of a higher quality and standard than the US, because the EU has better regulations in this field.
Don't worry about the downvote, this is true, especially with their harder stances against GMOs and nuclear power that are based on fearmongering rather than science. We need GMOs and nuclear to reduce climate change.
That said, this isn't a comment on whether or not BVOs are bad, just that the EU banning something isn't alone a reason to ban it here
While it's true that their stance against GMO was largely unfounded, they've generally made better calls with most things when it comes to food safety. In some sense, their stance against GMO was still valid, given that it was new technology - the real issue is how readily they move back on that when more evidence comes out.