this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
501 points (100.0% liked)

News

28602 readers
5296 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 109 points 2 months ago (35 children)

Sure. Ban Red Dye No. 3, but let's allow all the homeopathic bullshit we want because hey why regulate that stuff? They just give it to kids.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (8 children)

This is barely "the good."

A 1990 study concluded that "chronic erythrosine ingestion may promote thyroid tumor formation in rats via chronic stimulation of the thyroid by TSH." with 4% of total daily dietary intake consisting of erythrosine B.[10] A series of toxicology tests combined with a review of other reported studies concluded that erythrosine is non-genotoxic and any increase in tumors is caused by a non-genotoxic mechanism.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythrosine#Safety

Humans are not rats and no one is eating that much Red Dye No. 3 a day.

[–] [email protected] 70 points 2 months ago (1 children)

From reading about it, it’s really a risk/reward call. Red 3 has no nutritional or flavor-enhancing purpose. It’s just a decoration, so why take any risk, however small?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Because this took a hell of a lot of time and effort and taxpayer money that the FDA could have spent on so many other more important things.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (15 children)

Why are you complaining about the FDA doing their job, rather than the large corps that likely lobbied to avoid this and make it much harder for them?

They banned it in cosmetics in 1990, it seems pretty obvious that if it's unsafe for the outside of our body it shouldn't be inside either.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

They're a troll. Don't waste your time.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (13 children)

They do more than one thing at a time. It isn't like all other evaluations stopped to look at red dye #3.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Doesn't really matter since food dye is completely unimportant. Candy, cakes, and other foods will taste exactly the same without Red #3.

Better to eliminate any potential risks to ourselves and our pets/livestock than keep it around so Big Company can get better sales with their bright red whatever.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've genuinely never seen someone play Devil's advocate for a food dye of all things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

Studies have also indicated this dye (and others) could cause hyperactivity and similar problems in children.

https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/press-release/report-links-synthetic-food-dyes-hyperactivity-and-other-neurobehavioral-effects-children

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

At least homeopathic anything is not directly harmful in the context of ingesting it, because it contains no active ingredient.

It's only harmful in that people don't understand that it's bullshit and therefore believe that it works, and might skip actual effective treatment for whatever their ailment is in favor of cheaper (and totally ineffective) homeopathic whatever-the-hell. For that reason it should at least be regulated to the extent of having a big neon warning sticker on it that says, "This product is completely ineffective and accomplishes nothing other than setting your money on fire."

I'm all for outlawing it from a consumer advocacy standpoint because it's a scam, but otherwise it's just expensive water.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Except that it's ridiculously unregulated and it's not even actually "homeopathic" half the time, it contains actual pharmaceuticals or even just straight up poison.

Here's an example. It took ten years for the FDA to get this company to do a voluntary recall despite their product giving babies seizures.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/13/homeopathy-tablets-recall/

I'm amazed people aren't aware of this stuff.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Just slapping a "homeopathy" label on something with no oversight can't be an automatic dodge-all to regulation. If Hershey needs to prove what they put in a candy bar, anyone hawking homeopathic products should need to prove what they put in there as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago

MOD: In light of reports related to homeopathy:

There is a studied and demonstrated harm associated with homeopathy. However, claims made in ignorance of this will not be removed as misinformation at this time.

Read more: Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series | 2012

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago (5 children)

They have until 2027?

Lmao, we know this is bad but what's another 2yrs going to hurt...

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If the ban was effective immediately a bunch of things would have to be pulled from shelves and that would impact everything from Acetaminophen to Maraschino cherries to some vegetarian faux-meats. There's over 9,000 (lol) products across a wide number of industries that use Red 3.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Your comment prompted me to lookup when red 3 started to be used in food, but I couldn't find anything. Can't find who discovered it or when it was discovered either, weird. (There are claims but none with a credible source)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

According to Material History Review (Fall 1994) it was discovered in 1876 by Adolf Kussmaul. No clue who first used it in food, corporations weren't big fans of telling us what was in food back then.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Red #3 was invented by Red Foreman, obviously. It's named after him.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

beet

Invest in BEETS!! Get in on the GROUND FLOOR before BEET STONKS go BBRRRRRRR!!!1!one1!! 📈 🤑 🚀 🌕

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Who numbers all these dyes anyway?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's right, buddy. You show that turd who's boss.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Interesting question... After a small amount of research.

The FDA in the US and the INS globally. The number is just a sequential identifier, i.e., red #3 was approved before red #5.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I puked anytime I ate anything with #40 in it as a child. I wasn't about to let that get between me and red licorice though so I got over it as a teenager! 😅

I hope they get rid of #40 as well

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

“the link between the dye and cancer does not occur in humans”

So just because it’s carcinogenic in rats means it’s banned. But sure, let’s keep selling cigarettes. This is just a big joke.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago

It's a question of risk vs reward, not risk alone. I don't imagine many would care if their candies look different, but if you take away cigarettes, you're going to get a riot and lots of people going to the black market.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›