3 ms·

2014: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/06/310096596/no-more-bromine-coke-pepsi-drop-controversial-ingredient https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/20

2014: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/06/310096596/no-more-bromine-coke-pepsi-drop-controversial-ingredient https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/06/310096596/no... 2020: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/28/fact-check-mountain-dew-free-bvo-but-isnt-flame-retardant/5235571002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/28/fac... that one is fun, "reality is more nuanced", BVO has been patented as a flame retardant as well as an edible emulsifier, but that doesn't mean that the social media posts talking about it weren't still disinformation! "Oh kettle, thou art black." And it was in the Mountain Dew for years after they said they were gonna remove it but now its gone. pinky swear. wasn't that also during the "nutrition labels don't have to be absolutely accurate" era of the pandemic?

rhuru 3y ago
[flagged]
- groby_b 3y ago
  You might want to note that this claim is not even repeated by the NPR and USA Today articles, just mentioned as wrong. As for the FDA, they have linked to a toxicology study showing conclusively that BVOs are extremely problematic. Europe has done a number of studies as well, showing exactly the same thing. If you disagree with that conclusion, at least attack that, not an extremely weak straw argument.
  - StableAlkyne 3y ago
    To be fair to them, "It's a flame retardant" is a very common argument against the use of BVA. It's a bad argument that has the same level of merit (none) as "It's a chemical," but it's certainly a common argument. BVA has other health and safety concerns that do justify the ban... But it doesn't have the same shock-value as telling someone they're drinking flame retardant. I suspect that's why most of the online discussion misses the health effects and focuses on the more shocking claim.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      I think the shock value comes from how much we have heard over the decades about how harmful the smoke from flame retardants is, and how many types of flame retardant have been prohibited. So in a vacuum, I agree it's a stupid argument but in conjunction with "flame retardants are dangerous" it's not so stupid.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - groby_b 3y ago
      Sure, but (now flagged) OP was specifically criticizing the FDA. Which very much didn't make this argument. And, fwiw, I think it's important we don't conflate criticism of institutions with criticism of statements random people on the Internet made. (We can and should criticize either, but separately - the FDA being wrong has a much different meaning than somebody on the Internet being wrong)
User3456335 3y ago
It seems like the policy is to wait until is absolutely certain that it is really dangerous before banning it. Can you imagine the consequences of banning something that is perhaps not really dangerous? It's a good thing that these fact checkers are adding nuance!
tekla 3y ago
I have some bad news to tell you about water which is a flame retardant
- tohnjitor 3y ago
  That dastardly Dihydrogen monoxide strikes again!
smolder 3y ago
Yep, PepsiCo announced they would remove BVO many years ago, after a public campaign to have it removed, and then simply didn't. Their behavior in this case is emblematic of US food giants' disdain for the general public. Who cares if people lose thyroid function as long as we can keep brightly colored dyes suspended in our best selling corn juice?
- rsynnott 3y ago
  The most ridiculous bit; it's banned in Europe. In some countries in Europe it has been banned since 1970. Somehow, they manage to make their soft drinks in a Europe-saleable format, nonetheless. So it's not like it's impossible or anything.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    So it's not like it's impossible or anything. It's probably slightly more expensive.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      I tastes differently. Quite nice, drinking flame retardant in addition to the diabetes sugar spike has a certain nihilistic appeal to it.
  - smolder 3y ago
    I intend to dig into this some more as I'm curious exactly how the European versions of normally BVO-featuring sodas are formulated. I believe many varieties of mountain dew are simply not available in Europe at all.
  - akhosravian 3y ago
    My recollection is in Europe (or at least Spain circa 2016) Mountain Dew was much less intensely colored than in the US, and the neon tint was mainly from the bottle.
driggs 3y ago
BVO was one of the weirder ingredients in Mountain Dew for many many years, until it was finally reformulated around ~2020. Then they released Mountain Dew Throwback, which was subsequently rebranded Mountain Dew Real Sugar, and that variant still contained BVO. It sounds like they might retire it this year, perhaps because of the proposed ban on BVO?

rhuru 3y ago

[flagged]

groby_b 3y ago
You might want to note that this claim is not even repeated by the NPR and USA Today articles, just mentioned as wrong. As for the FDA, they have linked to a toxicology study showing conclusively that BVOs are extremely problematic. Europe has done a number of studies as well, showing exactly the same thing. If you disagree with that conclusion, at least attack that, not an extremely weak straw argument.
- StableAlkyne 3y ago
  To be fair to them, "It's a flame retardant" is a very common argument against the use of BVA. It's a bad argument that has the same level of merit (none) as "It's a chemical," but it's certainly a common argument. BVA has other health and safety concerns that do justify the ban... But it doesn't have the same shock-value as telling someone they're drinking flame retardant. I suspect that's why most of the online discussion misses the health effects and focuses on the more shocking claim.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    I think the shock value comes from how much we have heard over the decades about how harmful the smoke from flame retardants is, and how many types of flame retardant have been prohibited. So in a vacuum, I agree it's a stupid argument but in conjunction with "flame retardants are dangerous" it's not so stupid.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - groby_b 3y ago
    Sure, but (now flagged) OP was specifically criticizing the FDA. Which very much didn't make this argument. And, fwiw, I think it's important we don't conflate criticism of institutions with criticism of statements random people on the Internet made. (We can and should criticize either, but separately - the FDA being wrong has a much different meaning than somebody on the Internet being wrong)

User3456335 3y ago

It seems like the policy is to wait until is absolutely certain that it is really dangerous before banning it. Can you imagine the consequences of banning something that is perhaps not really dangerous? It's a good thing that these fact checkers are adding nuance!

tekla 3y ago

I have some bad news to tell you about water which is a flame retardant

tohnjitor 3y ago
That dastardly Dihydrogen monoxide strikes again!

smolder 3y ago

Yep, PepsiCo announced they would remove BVO many years ago, after a public campaign to have it removed, and then simply didn't. Their behavior in this case is emblematic of US food giants' disdain for the general public. Who cares if people lose thyroid function as long as we can keep brightly colored dyes suspended in our best selling corn juice?

rsynnott 3y ago
The most ridiculous bit; it's banned in Europe. In some countries in Europe it has been banned since 1970. Somehow, they manage to make their soft drinks in a Europe-saleable format, nonetheless. So it's not like it's impossible or anything.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  So it's not like it's impossible or anything. It's probably slightly more expensive.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    I tastes differently. Quite nice, drinking flame retardant in addition to the diabetes sugar spike has a certain nihilistic appeal to it.
- smolder 3y ago
  I intend to dig into this some more as I'm curious exactly how the European versions of normally BVO-featuring sodas are formulated. I believe many varieties of mountain dew are simply not available in Europe at all.
- akhosravian 3y ago
  My recollection is in Europe (or at least Spain circa 2016) Mountain Dew was much less intensely colored than in the US, and the neon tint was mainly from the bottle.

driggs 3y ago

BVO was one of the weirder ingredients in Mountain Dew for many many years, until it was finally reformulated around ~2020. Then they released Mountain Dew Throwback, which was subsequently rebranded Mountain Dew Real Sugar, and that variant still contained BVO. It sounds like they might retire it this year, perhaps because of the proposed ban on BVO?