My understanding is that there are somewhat more restrictive regulations on food dyes in the EU compared to the US. But that overall there isn't a big concern about the majority of these dyes.
There also isn't a fundamental difference between a synthetic and a natural dye. Okay, humans are more likely to have encountered a natural dye during their evolution and adapted to ingesting them. But that is unlikely to matter to all kinds of dyes, and also wouldn't filter out any health effects that don't affect reproductive fitness.
Treating a whole category of molecules this way does not make sense. It makes sense to evaluate the health effects of individual dyes. But that is not unique to synthetic dyes.
I could not find my reference but I thought it was something more along the lines that either they don’t need to be disclosed in the EU or they go under different safer sounding names.
Yeah, Yellow dye #6 may cause testicular cancer, but I can't stand boring looking pastries. Sure people could use saffron, but that's expensive and we have to have cheap and good looking, right?
Ban 'em all. If it isn't already in the foods we eat, it doesn't belong.
> We won’t see the full effect of his efforts until years down the road.
What are the expected outcomes of this change? What are the efforts that are driving this? The linked article cites consumer preferences as a primary driver for removing synthetic dyes, not any FDA regulations enforcing their removal.
Synthetic and “natural” is so hazy. What’s the difference between a dye that’s synthetically made and one where we crush up bugs and extract the same exact chemical (real thing.). Why don’t we just eliminate most dyes overall…
Eh. Being honest with dyes there's a pretty strong distinction between "natural" dyes going through several extraction and purification steps but remaining more or less the same intact molecule found in something alive.
"Synthetic" dyes being the result of a long chain of steps and intermediate molecules which are usually ultimately sourced from things like air, petroleum, and seawater.
Science literacy is bad so people have problems articulating the issue of concern which is "it is fair to have concerns about novel chemicals making their way into the food supply which evolution has not had a chance to address", not that something not found in nature is automatically bad but that such things need to be introduced carefully.
People don't know science though so everything is turning into "if it's not found in nature it is a monster and unclean", which to be honest is fair to a degree for people who don't know being forced to accept things blindly and asked to trust that everything is fine from people who would gladly disregard dangers in exchange for a fraction of a cent in profit margin.
That doesn't mean they're making good decisions just that their fear is justified.
I participated in some consumer testing when Kellogg's Canada was switching their breakfast cereals to natural colours. Beyond some muted colours, the cereal tasted exactly the same. Seemed like a no brainer, really.
Generally, I tend to eat natural foods. I have for decades. They just taste better. Dyes are mostly used in processed foods, because otherwise they would look unappealing next to fresh natural food. And for a very good reason.
All that is to say, doesn't much matter to me what they regulate, I eat hardly any of that stuff anyway.
If China stops buying our soybeans, we can start planting other things. Aren't natural food dyes just a great way to encourage diversity in domestic agriculture?
I am not an expert in synthetic vs. natural, but I feel like this decision isn't actually about health (I don't see any reason to believe why Wal-Mart cares at all about the health of Americans) but rather some larger macroeconomic reality.
We are exposed to so much anti-customer behavior thanks to HN. But this move is a shining example of alignment between customers and a commercial entity.
Businesses doing things in line with customer preferences is exciting to see.
Can someone please explain to me why people are so hostile to this? Like even if you don't care, why would people be against putting less chemicals in food?
This is good but the effects are also highly marginal. The key change would be if the U.S. moved to the EU system where a new food needs to be proven to be safe before it can be sold as opposed to the current system where a new food is assumed to be safe until proven otherwise.
That is the systemic shift that’s actually important and would have automatically handled the dyes issue as well.
30 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 57.2 ms ] threadThere also isn't a fundamental difference between a synthetic and a natural dye. Okay, humans are more likely to have encountered a natural dye during their evolution and adapted to ingesting them. But that is unlikely to matter to all kinds of dyes, and also wouldn't filter out any health effects that don't affect reproductive fitness.
Treating a whole category of molecules this way does not make sense. It makes sense to evaluate the health effects of individual dyes. But that is not unique to synthetic dyes.
There isn't. The US's FDA allows fewer of them than the EU's EFSA.
A small number of people get anaphylaxis from carmine.
I'm allergic to Yellow #5 (Tartrazine), but not to Tumeric which seems to do just as good as job of making things yellow/orange.
Ban 'em all. If it isn't already in the foods we eat, it doesn't belong.
What are the expected outcomes of this change? What are the efforts that are driving this? The linked article cites consumer preferences as a primary driver for removing synthetic dyes, not any FDA regulations enforcing their removal.
"Synthetic" dyes being the result of a long chain of steps and intermediate molecules which are usually ultimately sourced from things like air, petroleum, and seawater.
Science literacy is bad so people have problems articulating the issue of concern which is "it is fair to have concerns about novel chemicals making their way into the food supply which evolution has not had a chance to address", not that something not found in nature is automatically bad but that such things need to be introduced carefully.
People don't know science though so everything is turning into "if it's not found in nature it is a monster and unclean", which to be honest is fair to a degree for people who don't know being forced to accept things blindly and asked to trust that everything is fine from people who would gladly disregard dangers in exchange for a fraction of a cent in profit margin.
That doesn't mean they're making good decisions just that their fear is justified.
I'm sure I'm simplifying things, but I think this ban is common practice at this point in most of the EU, Canada.
Where else is hypercouloring cereal common?
All that is to say, doesn't much matter to me what they regulate, I eat hardly any of that stuff anyway.
I am not an expert in synthetic vs. natural, but I feel like this decision isn't actually about health (I don't see any reason to believe why Wal-Mart cares at all about the health of Americans) but rather some larger macroeconomic reality.
(except OTC medication always has that nonsense, but now my advil is also dye-free)
but Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the life-expectancy of people back when everything was natural and organic
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMpuL2GMQSd/embed/
Businesses doing things in line with customer preferences is exciting to see.
That is the systemic shift that’s actually important and would have automatically handled the dyes issue as well.