You must log in or register to comment.
Sure. Ban Red Dye No. 3, but let’s allow all the homeopathic bullshit we want because hey why regulate that stuff? They just give it to kids.
At least homeopathic anything is not directly harmful in the context of ingesting it, because it contains no active ingredient.
It’s only harmful in that people don’t understand that it’s bullshit and therefore believe that it works, and might skip actual effective treatment for whatever their ailment is in favor of cheaper (and totally ineffective) homeopathic whatever-the-hell. For that reason it should at least be regulated to the extent of having a big neon warning sticker on it that says, “This product is completely ineffective and accomplishes nothing other than setting your money on fire.”
I’m all for outlawing it from a consumer advocacy standpoint because it’s a scam, but otherwise it’s just expensive water.
Except that it’s ridiculously unregulated and it’s not even actually “homeopathic” half the time, it contains actual pharmaceuticals or even just straight up poison.
Here’s an example. It took ten years for the FDA to get this company to do a voluntary recall despite their product giving babies seizures.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/13/homeopathy-tablets-recall/
I’m amazed people aren’t aware of this stuff.
Yeah, that’s ridiculous.
Just slapping a “homeopathy” label on something with no oversight can’t be an automatic dodge-all to regulation. If Hershey needs to prove what they put in a candy bar, anyone hawking homeopathic products should need to prove what they put in there as well.
MOD: In light of reports related to homeopathy:
There is a studied and demonstrated harm associated with homeopathy. However, claims made in ignorance of this will not be removed as misinformation at this time.
Read more: Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series | 2012
They have until 2027?
Lmao, we know this is bad but what’s another 2yrs going to hurt…
Your comment prompted me to lookup when red 3 started to be used in food, but I couldn’t find anything. Can’t find who discovered it or when it was discovered either, weird. (There are claims but none with a credible source)
According to Material History Review (Fall 1994) it was discovered in 1876 by Adolf Kussmaul. No clue who first used it in food, corporations weren’t big fans of telling us what was in food back then.
I just found out minutes before I posted my comment someone added this information to the Wikipedia page lol.
Edit: huh, wait. Material History Review just says “Kussmaul (1876)”, are we sure it was Adolf Kussmaul? He was a physician, not a chemist. And it doesn’t reference any sources either… Was record keeping that bad back then?
I don’t know it seems like sometimes the mailman was discovering shit back then.
Invest in BEETS!! Get in on the GROUND FLOOR before BEET STONKS go BBRRRRRRR!!!1!one1!! 📈 🤑 🚀 🌕
For real?
And is there a Lemmy equivalent to pre-2021 wallstreetbets?
BELOW the ground floor!
Who numbers all these dyes anyway?
No. 2
Who does No. 2 work for?
No. 1
🤯🤯🤯
To be reversed by Tuesday.
We need more concrete changes.
Concrete is fine the way it is
“the link between the dye and cancer does not occur in humans”
So just because it’s carcinogenic in rats means it’s banned. But sure, let’s keep selling cigarettes. This is just a big joke.
Cigarettes are fairly easy and obvious to avoid, disregarding the occasional whiff when you’re out and about.
Food additives less so, especially when in it’s in a lot of different foods and manufacturers may change previously “safe” formulas.
Don’t worry. It’ll be back on the menu in six days.
I thought Red No. 5 was the bad one. I feel like I remember that from somewhere.
Yellow 5.
Rumors of it killing sperm back in the days of Surge.
