FDA bans Red No. 3 food dye in food, drinks
#health #science #biology @science@lemmy.world @science@beehaw.org @news@lemmy.world @health@lemmy.world @usnews@beehaw.org
Thankfully not red 40. I’m red 40 maxxing. Give me your gummy worms and fruit punch Gatorade. I’ve had a headache for 3 years but the immunity is building, I can feel it.
Isn’t Red 40 the more concerning dye since it causes behavior issues in kids? Can’t we just stick with using ground up beetles for our red colors instead of petroleum products?
Last I looked at it the support for that claim looked shaky. Can’t we just use plant-based natural reds? No need to grind bugs when you can grind beets.
Can’t we just have beige food?
You can definitely have that. Have mine.
Okay, Doug Funnie.
The claim is dubious.
Anecdotally, I stopped drinking mio with red 40 and switched to something dye free, and I’m much better regulated.
But anecdotes aren’t data. YMMV.
My wife is actually allergic to Red 40. She has to make sure she doesn’t ingest much. Not dangerously anaphylacticnorr anything just gets itchy and yucky feeling.
I was allergic to it as a kid, i would get huge rashes on my stomach and back and touching it even slightly would make to welp up. Very uncomfortable.
The wheel is turning finally and with this new administration we will see much more of this.
The ones that wants to deregulate food and medicine? That administration?
because our current administration did so much to help keep us healthy…https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/diabetes.htm
What a disingenuous deflection! Explain again how we’ll see “more of this”, which might be interpreted as banning harmful substances, so there’s an easy out for you! If only you would or could support your assertions…
Explain… to you… who even are you lol
Oh sorry I thought you had a point that you were trying to communicate! Like, it’s not for me, but for the people.
You did not understand my comment and It is intended to be self-explanatory. I would prefer not to repeat information unnecessarily for someone who may not have fully understood it.
Most of that data is from trumps term….
Good job you can see the year! now compare those #s to your boys year so you can see how much they did for us. I guess people love to live in ignorance and still yap…smh
My boy? My brother in Christ I’m not even American but still know Biden is a neoliberal bootlicker
Explain to me what Trump (or brainworm guy) did to accomplish this.
you deserve no explanation…because that is not what i said.
More of what?
This
You people just don’t even try anymore, do you?
Bro its not my fault you dont know what im referring too when its in the sentence. You gotta be able to figure this simple shit out if you wanna have a conversation about it.
Blah blah blah, and yet you still haven’t made a coherent point to respond to. Do you get paid by the word?
Just gotta learn how to read and comprehend, then you wouldn’t be asking meaningless questions.
…huh??
deleted by creator
I’m confused. This is notice from the FDA that the additive will no longer be permitted. It then goes on to explain why it’s perfectly fine to permit it…
The petition requested the agency review whether the Delaney Clause applied and cited, among other data and information, two studies that showed cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3 due to a rat specific hormonal mechanism. The way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans. Relevant exposure levels to FD&C Red No. 3 for humans are typically much lower than those that cause the effects shown in male rats. Studies in other animals and in humans did not show these effects; claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information.
This is what we’ve decided to do and this is why that decision doesn’t make any sense. More at 11.
From the very first sentence. "The FDA is revoking the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 as a matter of law, based on the Delaney Clause "
From the next paragraph after your quote, emphasis mine.
"The Delaney Clause, enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals. "
Perhaps we don’t agree with the Delaney Clause or think the FDA should not have a role in protecting animals, but they are the regulatory body for human and animal food, and by removing this dye from all food helps prevent animals from accidental ingestion.
Ah, that’s the bit I missed ‘or animals’.
Without that it just sounds like they’re arguing against themselves.
I mean, it still sounds like they are arguing against themselves even with the ‘or animals’ to be fair.
It sorta sounds reminiscent of MSG, in that they gave rats an excessive amount until it finally caused genetic damage.
I don’t disagree with using natural and benign colorants (or even none at all), but this almost borders on dishonesty by tricking the ill-informed which can trigger a backlash of even more distrust.
Just not as overtly racist as attitudes to MSG.
Communist party is in shambles
Was red #3 the one derived from a bug?
Nope. That’s Natural Red 4, aka carmine aka cochineal. And if you’re squicked out about bugs in your food then boy oh boy have I got bad news for you lol. Anyway bugs ass food is fine, personally, as long as they’re ground up into dust first.
The difference between eating a few by accident and having them ground up for coloring matters to vegetarians.
Here’s a list of foods that contain red dye 3. https://www.newsweek.com/list-red-dye-3-fda-food-drink-ban-2015450
Certain Sodas and fruit flavored drinks
Great. That was usefully specific.
Yeah, I looked around briefly but couldn’t find anything better. There must be one!
Fuckkkk!!! Not my vitamin gummies!
@science@lemmy.world @science@beehaw.org @news@lemmy.world @health@lemmy.world @usnews@beehaw.org Follow for health and science news to the Fediverse
Where are biohackers being booed the most?
