4 ms·

It's called the precautionary principle. It's generally a good idea. And yes, you have to implement it at the regulatory level because otherwise Food Inc. will

It's called the precautionary principle. It's generally a good idea. And yes, you have to implement it at the regulatory level because otherwise Food Inc. will try to get away with everything they can.

tptacek 1y ago
The precautionary principle is not entirely benign. Here, though, it's not even apposite: the dyes being ditched here have been intensively studied for decades.
timr 1y ago
As a chemist, I can tell you that nearly everything you can think of -- "natural" or otherwise -- has been correlated to some negative outcome, in some organism, by some (usually crappy) study. These get laundered and blurred into "linked to negative health effects", by the lay press, which is widely repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about. P-hacking virtually guarantees that this will be the case, as long as someone, somewhere has the incentive to publish. If you apply the "precautionary principle" this broadly, there's nothing left. It's basically the same reason that everything is labeled as "linked to cancer" by CA prop 65 (e.g. coffee, or...trees [1]). [1] https://x.com/RhonaA_PhD/status/1056921307634380800 https://x.com/RhonaA_PhD/status/1056921307634380800
- codedokode 1y ago
  Dye is not an essential component of food and therefore should be banned, at least for food that has natural color (like meat or cheese). Not only it might be harmful, it causes false expectation of quality and freshness and should not be allowed. Because otherwise for a manufacturer it is easier to color low-quality product rather than make high-quality product.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    "All dyes should be banned" is different than what is described here. Is using annatto in cheddar cheese a dye? It doesn't affect the flavor and isn't essential to the product.
    - codedokode 1y ago
      I only buy cheese without annatto.
      - UncleMeat 1y ago
        Should it be banned?
mrguyorama 1y ago
The precautionary principle is not "Ban scary sounding things", it's "Prove that chemical is safe before you can expose people to it", which places like the EU often attempt to do. But notably, nothing about this action takes any steps or effort towards enforcing "Prove it is safe BEFORE you sell it" and "natural" does not make any impact there. Ricin is plenty natural, so is methanol, and this change would not stop you from selling people literal poison as long as it wasn't already banned. If Bayer makes a new derivative of carminic acid ("Natural" red #4) tomorrow that is easier for production lines to handle but also gives you cancer if you eat it for 20 years, there's no legal requirement that they demonstrate it doesn't give you cancer before they can sell it. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY as a consumer to do that science for them! It being "Natural" is utterly meaningless marketing bullshit. None of this bullshit safety theater makes any of us more safe. As I note elsewhere, this isn't exactly damaging though. Most other countries already encouraged manufacturers to develop formulas without artificial dyes, primarily due to differences in consumer opinion (which is usually similarly not fact based), so companies are going to make a big hubub about how this will be so hard for them and then they just shut down the "this is American specific" production line and retool it for the international formula and then insist that they made such a huge change to help everyone. But "natural colors only" has zero relation to "more healthy", and that goes double when you are talking about processed food. If you actually wanted people to eat healthier, you would be better off banning all food coloring additives, all food texture additives, and anything that lets you modify how food presents itself after processing. People would buy less processed food if it all looked like what it actually was. Other countries have better food than the US because 1) They often force food additives to be PROVEN safe before any use and much more importantly 2) consumers are way more discerning about food. European bread doesn't have a spoonful of sugar or sugar syrup because Europeans don't want their bread to be addictively sweet, while Americans objectively buy more bread that's been sweetened than "normal" bread. I'm not a fan of treating "revealed preferences" as too meaningful, but it's hard to sell bread to people who wont buy it because they would rather eat the cake in bread form. So it's important to ask why Europeans want their cakes cakey, and their bread not.

tptacek 1y ago

The precautionary principle is not entirely benign. Here, though, it's not even apposite: the dyes being ditched here have been intensively studied for decades.

timr 1y ago

As a chemist, I can tell you that nearly everything you can think of -- "natural" or otherwise -- has been correlated to some negative outcome, in some organism, by some (usually crappy) study. These get laundered and blurred into "linked to negative health effects", by the lay press, which is widely repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about. P-hacking virtually guarantees that this will be the case, as long as someone, somewhere has the incentive to publish. If you apply the "precautionary principle" this broadly, there's nothing left. It's basically the same reason that everything is labeled as "linked to cancer" by CA prop 65 (e.g. coffee, or...trees [1]). [1] https://x.com/RhonaA_PhD/status/1056921307634380800 https://x.com/RhonaA_PhD/status/1056921307634380800

codedokode 1y ago
Dye is not an essential component of food and therefore should be banned, at least for food that has natural color (like meat or cheese). Not only it might be harmful, it causes false expectation of quality and freshness and should not be allowed. Because otherwise for a manufacturer it is easier to color low-quality product rather than make high-quality product.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  "All dyes should be banned" is different than what is described here. Is using annatto in cheddar cheese a dye? It doesn't affect the flavor and isn't essential to the product.
  - codedokode 1y ago
    I only buy cheese without annatto.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      Should it be banned?

mrguyorama 1y ago

The precautionary principle is not "Ban scary sounding things", it's "Prove that chemical is safe before you can expose people to it", which places like the EU often attempt to do. But notably, nothing about this action takes any steps or effort towards enforcing "Prove it is safe BEFORE you sell it" and "natural" does not make any impact there. Ricin is plenty natural, so is methanol, and this change would not stop you from selling people literal poison as long as it wasn't already banned. If Bayer makes a new derivative of carminic acid ("Natural" red #4) tomorrow that is easier for production lines to handle but also gives you cancer if you eat it for 20 years, there's no legal requirement that they demonstrate it doesn't give you cancer before they can sell it. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY as a consumer to do that science for them! It being "Natural" is utterly meaningless marketing bullshit. None of this bullshit safety theater makes any of us more safe. As I note elsewhere, this isn't exactly damaging though. Most other countries already encouraged manufacturers to develop formulas without artificial dyes, primarily due to differences in consumer opinion (which is usually similarly not fact based), so companies are going to make a big hubub about how this will be so hard for them and then they just shut down the "this is American specific" production line and retool it for the international formula and then insist that they made such a huge change to help everyone. But "natural colors only" has zero relation to "more healthy", and that goes double when you are talking about processed food. If you actually wanted people to eat healthier, you would be better off banning all food coloring additives, all food texture additives, and anything that lets you modify how food presents itself after processing. People would buy less processed food if it all looked like what it actually was. Other countries have better food than the US because 1) They often force food additives to be PROVEN safe before any use and much more importantly 2) consumers are way more discerning about food. European bread doesn't have a spoonful of sugar or sugar syrup because Europeans don't want their bread to be addictively sweet, while Americans objectively buy more bread that's been sweetened than "normal" bread. I'm not a fan of treating "revealed preferences" as too meaningful, but it's hard to sell bread to people who wont buy it because they would rather eat the cake in bread form. So it's important to ask why Europeans want their cakes cakey, and their bread not.