I’m in Canada where we have restricted some food dyes. I miss the old colours of Froot Loops and Smarties (similar to M&Ms, not rockets). But it’s fine because those colourants really do only exist to make junk food look good.
It’s not clear to me the exact scope of what they consider to be artifical dyes though. Is a dye produced by a genetically modified bacteria natural enough?
Conservatives have been saying that Dems want to force them to eat bugs, so it’s a little strange to be tacitly encouraging the use of Natural Red 4 which is made from crushed beetles.
The fun thing about “natural” vs “artificial” dyes is pretty nothingburger in reality. The manufacturers of chemical dyes, scents, etc. just generate the chemical by whatever means. If it’s a “natural” flavor/scent/color it is derived from something like a beetle or a flower. If it’s “artificial” it is derived via a chemical process. The end product is the same.
Reminds me of some years back when Starbucks answered the cry of, “but we don’t want artificial flavors/colors in our coffee!” so they started using a red dye for one of their drinks that was derived from crushed up beetle shells. People then freaked out, “I don’t want to drink beetle shells!!!”
TL;DR: The end product is the same, whether it be natural or artificial. The real concern, is if the product should really be consumed at all.
The Big Brains like RFK Jr. likely lack the mental capacity to understand such concepts, so all the dyes will become “natural” and stick around, and just increase the number of purée’d parakeets. Basically, another shitty cup game.
TL;DR: The end product is the same, whether it be natural or artificial. The real concern, is if the product should really be consumed at all.
This is hot crap. They are different chemicals, the end product is not the same and you’re spouting misinformation.
Most of the artificial dyes that people have banned in countries other than the USA are derived from petrochemicals. Natural dyes have been in use far longer and have been shown to have fewer negative health outcomes.
Eg.
Red dye containing bugs (cochineal, E120) has no known health effects except to an extremely small percentage of the population whom are allergic to bugs, hence it is marked as an ingredient when used, to alert those with allergies. Its replacement alternatives are:
red dye #2 (amaranth, E123) which was made from coal tar, and is now made from petroleum byproducts. It is a suspected carcinogen and is banned in most of the world including the US.
red dye #3 (erythrosine, E127) was first extracted from coal tar and is derived from phenol, currently extracted from petroleum byproducts and it is a known carcinogen and restricted heavily in what it can be used in since the early 1990s in every developed nation except the USA, until this very announcement by the FDA and RFK jr which will bring the USA in line with the rest of the world’s protections. California also separately banned it in October 2023.
red dye 40 (Allura red) is an entirely synthetic dye invented by a chemical corporation in 1971 by azo coupling between diazotized 5-amino-4-methoxy-2-toluenesulfonic acid and 6-hydroxy-2-naphthalene sulfonic acid. I don’t know what that means in order to determine if its feedstocks are petrochemicals, but mice studies showed bowel disorders and DNA damage which caused several countries to ban it over the years, however it’s currently believed to be safe if the maximum daily limit is adhered to.
I’m in Canada where we have restricted some food dyes. I miss the old colours of Froot Loops and Smarties (similar to M&Ms, not rockets). But it’s fine because those colourants really do only exist to make junk food look good.
It’s not clear to me the exact scope of what they consider to be artifical dyes though. Is a dye produced by a genetically modified bacteria natural enough?
Conservatives have been saying that Dems want to force them to eat bugs, so it’s a little strange to be tacitly encouraging the use of Natural Red 4 which is made from crushed beetles.
The fun thing about “natural” vs “artificial” dyes is pretty nothingburger in reality. The manufacturers of chemical dyes, scents, etc. just generate the chemical by whatever means. If it’s a “natural” flavor/scent/color it is derived from something like a beetle or a flower. If it’s “artificial” it is derived via a chemical process. The end product is the same.
Reminds me of some years back when Starbucks answered the cry of, “but we don’t want artificial flavors/colors in our coffee!” so they started using a red dye for one of their drinks that was derived from crushed up beetle shells. People then freaked out, “I don’t want to drink beetle shells!!!”
TL;DR: The end product is the same, whether it be natural or artificial. The real concern, is if the product should really be consumed at all.
The Big Brains like RFK Jr. likely lack the mental capacity to understand such concepts, so all the dyes will become “natural” and stick around, and just increase the number of purée’d parakeets. Basically, another shitty cup game.
This is hot crap. They are different chemicals, the end product is not the same and you’re spouting misinformation.
Most of the artificial dyes that people have banned in countries other than the USA are derived from petrochemicals. Natural dyes have been in use far longer and have been shown to have fewer negative health outcomes.
Eg. Red dye containing bugs (cochineal, E120) has no known health effects except to an extremely small percentage of the population whom are allergic to bugs, hence it is marked as an ingredient when used, to alert those with allergies. Its replacement alternatives are:
And that’s just red dye.