26
RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?
(www.theguardian.com)
His "point" is that food dyes cause cancer, hyperactivity, and autism. It's a great horror story I'm sure. Not really a point.
For those interested in the actual science part of the article:
Why the fuss over food coloring? Are natural dyes really that much better for our health?
“They’re better for some people’s health,” says Jamie Alan, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University. “There is a very small percentage of children who are very sensitive to these dyes. And when they eat these dyes, they display behaviors that we sometimes associate with ADHD.”
Alan stresses that there is no evidence that those kids actually develop ADHD. But research has found that after eating foods containing certain dyes, children, including those diagnosed with ADHD or autism, can show signs of hyperactivity, moodiness and inattentiveness. However many of these foods, particularly candy and soda, also contain sugar, which has also been connected to hyperactive behavior.
Alan recommends that parents talk to a pediatrician and try an elimination diet to make sure the dye and not another ingredient is to blame. But she largely supports phasing out artificial dyes; most public health advocates think this is a good idea. “In my opinion,” Alan says, “because we’re talking about children and because they are a vulnerable population, I do think this is a great thing to do. But I will recognize that it is not going to impact the vast majority of the population.”
None of this changes the fact that Robert F. Kennedy is a fucking moron.
load more comments
(3 replies)
RFK JR actually says something intelligent... That's something I never thought I would experience.
I'm ready to make him fight for this, even as I agree with him that those chemicals are an issue. Just not the issue he thinks they are.
The more time he sinks into this, the less he has to throw disabled people off of bridges.
The dyes must be harmful to the worms
I'm sure it wasn't intentional
I hate dyes because they are a form of advertisement.
Stopped clock. Hell, even a backwards running clock is right ever so often.
... A backwards-running clock is right more often... Unless I'm misreading what you meant.
You're not misreading but you are thinking too much about the analogy.
Reading deeper, some backwards clocks can be an accurate projection of working ones if used with a mirror.
I get it, because we want to do the opposite of what RFK Jr wants the majority of the time.
Curious who's gonna regulate it after they knee capped the FDA
I'm ready for that psycho to die. I don't care how he goes. But he does need to go. Go on down to the lower room. Where his drug addled cracked out demented ass belongs.
We can't get labels that say what's actually in our food, and chuckle fuck thinks he's gonna ban food coloring.
Only decades after other countries kicked them out. Some of those common American food dyes are illegal even in China, of all places.
I'm ready to let go of RFK Jr.
LOL this is great!
This reminds me of the study that said that people drive more colorful cars in times when the economic outlooks are better.
So, the colorfulness expresses their character and their outlook towards a positive future.
A colleague told me of a similar study that related shorter skirt lengths on women to better economic outlooks.
huh, when i learned about the hemline index i learned about it in the inverse, but basically what i learned about macro is that it's bullshit.
Let's fix this society, if only for shorter skirts.
All a distraction. Yes some of these ideas aren't bad. We don't need this fuckhead to implement them.
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
Sir, this is Lemmy. If the corporations do it, it's bad no matter what it is.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Why not disallow all food dye, not just the bright ones?
Beet juice is a bright dye, but it’s also a food. Some dyes are entirely harmless. I believe the rule they’re talking about affects artificial dyes, not bright dyes, and the headline is mistaken.
For example, some red dyes are sourced from petroleum instead of edible substances.
some red dyes are sourced from petroleum
so are skin creams and lipstick btw and i'm pretty sure these are non-toxic
if you wanna know more, look up "paraffine wax". it's literally what skin creams are mostly made of.
Skin safe is not necessarily ingestion safe
I mean, the fact that there is stuff for sale in the US with the label saying "scientists in California have proven this causes cancer" is proof enough that even a crazy nutter like RFK can be sometimes right.
Is this comment about the Prop 65 warnings? Prop 65 is useless, because the dose is the poison and it says nothing about that. Putting warnings up almost everywhere means people will (and often should) ignore them.
I mean I don't care. At least then I wouldn't have vaguely orange spoons after making Mac-n-cheese.
You don't care? You don't care that you are being poisoned but you're kinda happy your spoons won't have a funny color.
Is this the American Educational system in practice?
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
26 points (90.6% liked)
News
31396 readers
1005 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