I want to be clear that I’m not arguing in favor of food dyes. I don’t think food should be dyed at all. And I agree we need to thoroughly research everything going into our food. The FDA needs to be stronger and more proactive.
But it also needs to be science-based in its methodology. It needs to be transparent and consistent. Nowhere in that link does it talk about hyperactivity in children, which is the justification that RFK cites in announcing the ban. He doesn’t mention cancer risks or hypersensitivity, probably because he doesn’t want to be pressured to ban every carcinogenic substance in the food supply. And that’s exactly the problem I have with all of this. He’s picking and choosing what to ban and using fiction to justify how selective he’s being. That’s precisely how you corrupt a process. And the best way to introduce corruption is to do it to get a palatable result.
Thank you for a thoughtful and sensible clarification. Yeah, RFK seems to be a jackass. I don’t think I’ve seen evidence to suggest that food dye causes hyperactivity. But since RFK has opened the subject of hyperactivity, maybe he’d rather look at evidence surrounding sweeteners…?
Hyperactivity is one of those nebulous pop-health terms that boomers fell for back in the 80s and 90s. It was used to market Ritalin and Adderall, both of which treat actual diseases, but became trendy drugs to “normalize” your unruly children. Sugar, artificial dyes, satan, skateboarding, Bart Simpson, and Nintendo were all blamed for disobedient crotch goblins acting out. They couldn’t use the same violence their parents relied upon, because a bunch of bleeding heart (now known as “woke”) scientists determined that abusing children is bad for them.
RFK never stopped believing the bullshit, even after is was thoroughly debunked.
I want to be clear that I’m not arguing in favor of food dyes. I don’t think food should be dyed at all. And I agree we need to thoroughly research everything going into our food. The FDA needs to be stronger and more proactive.
But it also needs to be science-based in its methodology. It needs to be transparent and consistent. Nowhere in that link does it talk about hyperactivity in children, which is the justification that RFK cites in announcing the ban. He doesn’t mention cancer risks or hypersensitivity, probably because he doesn’t want to be pressured to ban every carcinogenic substance in the food supply. And that’s exactly the problem I have with all of this. He’s picking and choosing what to ban and using fiction to justify how selective he’s being. That’s precisely how you corrupt a process. And the best way to introduce corruption is to do it to get a palatable result.
Thank you for a thoughtful and sensible clarification. Yeah, RFK seems to be a jackass. I don’t think I’ve seen evidence to suggest that food dye causes hyperactivity. But since RFK has opened the subject of hyperactivity, maybe he’d rather look at evidence surrounding sweeteners…?
Hyperactivity is one of those nebulous pop-health terms that boomers fell for back in the 80s and 90s. It was used to market Ritalin and Adderall, both of which treat actual diseases, but became trendy drugs to “normalize” your unruly children. Sugar, artificial dyes, satan, skateboarding, Bart Simpson, and Nintendo were all blamed for disobedient crotch goblins acting out. They couldn’t use the same violence their parents relied upon, because a bunch of bleeding heart (now known as “woke”) scientists determined that abusing children is bad for them.
RFK never stopped believing the bullshit, even after is was thoroughly debunked.