A 1990 study concluded that “chronic erythrosine ingestion may promote thyroid tumor formation in rats via chronic stimulation of the thyroid by TSH.” with 4% of total daily dietary intake consisting of erythrosine B.[10] A series of toxicology tests combined with a review of other reported studies concluded that erythrosine is non-genotoxic and any increase in tumors is caused by a non-genotoxic mechanism.[11]
From reading about it, it’s really a risk/reward call. Red 3 has no nutritional or flavor-enhancing purpose. It’s just a decoration, so why take any risk, however small?
If they were doing their job, they would remove dangerous “herbal” remedies people are giving to their kids and hurting or even killing them, not something that has a small chance of causing cancer if you feed a shit ton of it to a rat.
In the context of this article, they are. Your argument about something else is a straw man and a whataboutism.
If you think the FDA should regulate something else that it currently does not, take it to Congress. They’re the ones who decide what the FDA does and does not regulate.
Right so I mean—the cost of research and analysis and the entire process of determining the possible risks is money that simply must be spent either way, even on products that are ultimately deemed suitable for market. That’s the entire purpose of the FDA, to find these things out.
So we’re really just looking at the costs associated with the ban itself. Such as the labor hours of FDA employees setting it up? Communicating it to people? I agree with your concerns I’m just trying to get a sense of what we actually spent to arrive here
I can’t give you numbers, but it’s a federal regulation. A lot of reports have to get written and a lot of research has to be done, especially in the field of federal regulation as a whole, which is so insane that we literally have no idea how many federal laws there are. And then all of that documentation has to be read by other people and approved all the way up the chain. So we are talking a lot of people’s time and effort (which translates into taxpayer money) that could have better been spent on things which are causing active harm.
I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate, I’m saying this is a really minor good in the greater scheme of things and I imagine the cost and time breakdown in terms of what it took to accomplish took a lot away from other, more important things.
Doesn’t really matter since food dye is completely unimportant. Candy, cakes, and other foods will taste exactly the same without Red #3.
Better to eliminate any potential risks to ourselves and our pets/livestock than keep it around so Big Company can get better sales with their bright red whatever.
That painting on the wall could potentially fall and break in a hazardous way. The point is: regulation for its own sake is theater and it’s impossible to account for every conceivable risk. If a product is plausibly harmful under normal usage, sure. If it causes cancer when force-fed to rats in impossible proportions? Leave it be, study further perhaps.
That’s a solid argument: we have several ways to achieve the same result and should limit the riskiest because market forces aren’t going to correct for them. Much better than “get rid of this one possibly risky thing because I don’t personally value it.”
Assuming a person eats ~1.8kg of food per day, that would be ~72 grams. Basing that math off of a number I had heard previously stating that adults eat anywhere from 3-5lbs of food daily.
This is barely “the good.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythrosine#Safety
Humans are not rats and no one is eating that much Red Dye No. 3 a day.
From reading about it, it’s really a risk/reward call. Red 3 has no nutritional or flavor-enhancing purpose. It’s just a decoration, so why take any risk, however small?
Because this took a hell of a lot of time and effort and taxpayer money that the FDA could have spent on so many other more important things.
They do more than one thing at a time. It isn’t like all other evaluations stopped to look at red dye #3.
They have a limited amount of time and resources. What was spent on this could have been spent on something more dangerous.
Why are you complaining about the FDA doing their job, rather than the large corps that likely lobbied to avoid this and make it much harder for them?
They banned it in cosmetics in 1990, it seems pretty obvious that if it’s unsafe for the outside of our body it shouldn’t be inside either.
They’re a troll. Don’t waste your time.
If they were doing their job, they would remove dangerous “herbal” remedies people are giving to their kids and hurting or even killing them, not something that has a small chance of causing cancer if you feed a shit ton of it to a rat.
As I showed to someone else, it took ten years for the FDA to get a company to voluntarily recall a product that was causing seizures in hundreds of babies. https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/13/homeopathy-tablets-recall/
That’s a deflection, not an answer
How is that a deflection? I don’t agree that they are doing their jobs.
In the context of this article, they are. Your argument about something else is a straw man and a whataboutism.
If you think the FDA should regulate something else that it currently does not, take it to Congress. They’re the ones who decide what the FDA does and does not regulate.
I’d be curious about what the cost actually is?
Right so I mean—the cost of research and analysis and the entire process of determining the possible risks is money that simply must be spent either way, even on products that are ultimately deemed suitable for market. That’s the entire purpose of the FDA, to find these things out.
So we’re really just looking at the costs associated with the ban itself. Such as the labor hours of FDA employees setting it up? Communicating it to people? I agree with your concerns I’m just trying to get a sense of what we actually spent to arrive here
I can’t give you numbers, but it’s a federal regulation. A lot of reports have to get written and a lot of research has to be done, especially in the field of federal regulation as a whole, which is so insane that we literally have no idea how many federal laws there are. And then all of that documentation has to be read by other people and approved all the way up the chain. So we are talking a lot of people’s time and effort (which translates into taxpayer money) that could have better been spent on things which are causing active harm.
I’ve genuinely never seen someone play Devil’s advocate for a food dye of all things.
I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate, I’m saying this is a really minor good in the greater scheme of things and I imagine the cost and time breakdown in terms of what it took to accomplish took a lot away from other, more important things.
Doesn’t really matter since food dye is completely unimportant. Candy, cakes, and other foods will taste exactly the same without Red #3.
Better to eliminate any potential risks to ourselves and our pets/livestock than keep it around so Big Company can get better sales with their bright red whatever.
You willing to apply that logic to every unnecessary decoration in your life?
I mean, yeah. Potentially harmful but otherwise useless materials? I try to reduce those whatever possible.
That painting on the wall could potentially fall and break in a hazardous way. The point is: regulation for its own sake is theater and it’s impossible to account for every conceivable risk. If a product is plausibly harmful under normal usage, sure. If it causes cancer when force-fed to rats in impossible proportions? Leave it be, study further perhaps.
Well, to be fair, the painting ostensively offers a somewhat unique artistic value. There is a reward to go with the risk.
Red 3 is simply a way to make things red, which we have tons of other ways of doing that don’t have any known risks
That’s a solid argument: we have several ways to achieve the same result and should limit the riskiest because market forces aren’t going to correct for them. Much better than “get rid of this one possibly risky thing because I don’t personally value it.”
There’s a reason that paint doesn’t have lead in it anymore.
Studies have also indicated this dye (and others) could cause hyperactivity and similar problems in children.
https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/press-release/report-links-synthetic-food-dyes-hyperactivity-and-other-neurobehavioral-effects-children
Any easy way to figure out 4% as grams in a human diet?
Assuming a person eats ~1.8kg of food per day, that would be ~72 grams. Basing that math off of a number I had heard previously stating that adults eat anywhere from 3-5lbs of food daily.
I bet we could tell who is eating 70+grams of Erythrosine by their color.
Thanks, I was wondering what was wrong with it.