Earlier quoted context omitted.
they might not drink water
Most likely so if they buy their food at walmart.
Maybe they're smarter than you with money. The same box of cereal that costs less than $2 at Walmart is almost $6 at Whole Foods.
31–40 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they might not drink water
Most likely so if they buy their food at walmart.
Maybe they're smarter than you with money. The same box of cereal that costs less than $2 at Walmart is almost $6 at Whole Foods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It makes sense to evaluate the health effects of individual dyes I wonder if changing the color of food is actually that important.
Ah, yes. The "I don't think anyone needs to do this, therefore no one needs to do this" argument.
All that is to say, doesn't much matter to me what they regulate, I eat hardly any of that stuff anyway.
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 matte…
A small number of people get anaphylaxis from carmine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is likely also an attempt to market to people who think things like "but I don't want to be exposed to chemicals" while not realizing water is a chemical.
This is the kind of nerd-snark that makes normal people not trust anything from the mouths of "experts." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sheer percentage of artificial food dyes that have been banned suggests otherwise. There’s a long pattern of banning something once enough evidence builds up only to be replaced by something that’s then eventually banded. If there where significant value that might be different, but there isn’t a great argument for experimenting on millions of people here.
How many artificial food dyes have been actually banned? I mean in the time where we actually had some regulations, the old days were quite wild in terms of safety in all areas, so I don't think that would be a useful comparison.
I personally have known people who develop migraines after eating food with artificial dyes. We can sit here and snipe and play semantics and argue over pointless details but why bother? Just get rid of them all.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is likely also an attempt to market to people who think things like "but I don't want to be exposed to chemicals" while not realizing water is a chemical.
This is the kind of nerd-snark that makes normal people not trust anything from the mouths of "experts." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
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…
You will eat the bugs...