this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
286 points (99.3% liked)

science

15219 readers
671 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GrumpyDuckling 9 points 2 days ago

Communist party is in shambles

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Okay, Doug Funnie.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can't we just have beige food?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

You can definitely have that. Have mine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ah, that's the bit I missed 'or animals'.

Without that it just sounds like they're arguing against themselves.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

I mean, it still sounds like they are arguing against themselves even with the 'or animals' to be fair.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago

Just not as overtly racist as attitudes to MSG.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Was red #3 the one derived from a bug?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] explodicle 2 points 1 day ago

The difference between eating a few by accident and having them ground up for coloring matters to vegetarians.

[–] clay_pidgin 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Certain Sodas and fruit flavored drinks

Great. That was usefully specific.

[–] clay_pidgin 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I looked around briefly but couldn't find anything better. There must be one!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Fuckkkk!!!! Not my vitamin gummies!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Where are biohackers being booed the most?