- cross-posted to:
- usa
- cross-posted to:
- usa
U.S. regulators on Wednesday banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation’s food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
People are not even sure what the meaning of “science” is - what is purpose beyond the limited framework of the empire ought to be.
Red dead reduction.
Perfect
Me, chilling with my girlfriends (Angela, Pamela, Sandra, Rita, Monica, Erica, Tina, Sandra, Mary, and Jessica) with Red Dye No. 5, watching everyone die from A Little Bit Of cancer:
Just checked and hot cheetos have “red 40” *sigh of relief
Genuinely was wondering: what food/drink actually uses red 3 today? Like definitely sounds like it should probably be banned from food one way or another but every food I can think of with red dye is red 40. Edit: like if it doesn’t go without saying you should probably avoid red 40 also just cause you should avoid processes foods with additives as much as possible…but still better.
Isn’t red 40 a coal or petrol derivative?
Petroleum & aluminum according to a handful of search results
Yum yum yum
that is also being banned in california iirc
Nice get his ass
NOOOOOOOOO
wokeness strikes again
waiting for the day a boomer uses “woke” around me unironically so I can make them define it
I have innocently asked a boomer what “woke” was before and got a very entertaining rambling answer.
Oh they just laugh and will not define it. This is from workplace experience so maybe an individual with a sense of self would have a hard time with that.
I am not above putting an old man in a headlock at the Rite-Aid
I would instead act like I have never heard the term before. Play really dumb and when they start fumbling trying to describe what it is I’ll just say, “Isn’t that just normal people doing normal things?”
Nooooooo that’s what I snort before work for my adhd!!!
Livin on red- dye number 3, and cocaine
I’m starting to think the red dye might be a placebo at this point.
Amazing combo . Where I’m from we call it blood snow
All the fda said was ain’t it a shame.
wow, the system works! checkmate tankies
Don’t worry patriots, RFK will mandate that it be used in anything food related that is red after he assumes office
RFK is crystal MAGA; he thinks food dyes cause ADHD. If he ends up wielding any power at all we’ll probably end up with beet juice in everything (also all the milk will be unpasteurized and vaccination will be putting a bunch of sick toddlers in a room together to brew the next super plague, but hey that ADHD problem will be solved).
He has a few broken clock view points like with the dyes and maybe taking a more critical look at the pharma industry… But as always, it’s for all the wrong reasons and will be entirely executed in a harmful way.
He mentioned wanting to ban or limit high fructose corn syrup which yk good riddance. But I’m sure they’ll fuck it up somehow
ADM would have his head on a pike in a matter of days if he ever attempts it.
