114
FDA bans red dye No. 3 from foods
(apnews.com)
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?
