6 ms·
I believe part of the problem is that it's difficult to draw the line defining what an "additive" is. Any sort of spices, ferment, baking powder, food coloring
by a2800276 4y ago
I believe part of the problem is that it's difficult to draw the line defining what an "additive" is.
Any sort of spices, ferment, baking powder, food coloring (even traditional coloring like beet juice or squid ink) could be considered additive. A lot of these things have been traditionally used for centuries. And otoh just because something has been used traditionally does guarantee its safety.
- beezlewax 4y agoWho cares what the line is? That's just semantics. Every food ingredient should be baseline safe for normal consumption "additive" or not.
- quickthrower2 4y agoBut guilty until proven innocent is what being suggested here, so you would need to check thousands of different compounds in say coffee and run trials on them all individually?
- aperson_hello 4y agoAnd to pile on, many of those thousands of compounds are already known to be toxic and/or carcinogenic at high levels.
- Spivak 4y agoThis Starbucks is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
- aperson_hello 4y agoTo be fair, that specific warning is (probably) due to a different carcinogenic food additive: heat
- Volundr 4y agoUnless you are making your coffee out of an chemical soup instead of coffee beans it would be sufficient to run trials on the beans.
- joshspankit 4y agoThe burden of proof would be in the company that wants to sell it. So “you” wouldn’t have to (nor your tax dollars). The company who’s investing resources to bring the product to market would have to. (And it should go without saying that they should also have to fund an impartial third party in order to do that)
- ticviking 4y agoSo have a carve out in the law for additives in customary continuous use