It began with just 1 red artificial color.  Now it will be all. 

And the plan in 2 years is so the next admin cannot undo this until after the change has been competed.

I'll be that DNC orgs will fund lawsuits.  But they forget that many companies already make 2 types of products. 1 with artifical dye's and the other without when they sell to places that ban them like Canada and the some EU countries.

i watched a woman's press conference on this.  One point she emphasized is how certain products from certain customers market one version to other nations without these dyes, and a different version for US consumers.  Many of the US dyes are created from petroleum components.

It's smart to have a spokesperson be the public face of RFK's efforts.  His vocal problems tend to interfere with his message, IMO. 

i watched a woman's press conference on this.  One point she emphasized is how certain products from certain customers market one version to other nations without these dyes, and a different version for US consumers.  Many of the US dyes are created from petroleum components.

It's smart to have a spokesperson be the public face of RFK's efforts.  His vocal problems tend to interfere with his message, IMO.

Lets see how the fake news will handle this and we can put it in the other fake news thread later.

I question the claims of all the risks of the artificial colors but I generally support this idea overall. Artificial colors have some benefits but I can't really think of a good argument not to go all natural.

I question the claims of all the risks of the artificial colors but I generally support this idea overall. Artificial colors have some benefits but I can't really think of a good argument not to go all natural.

What benefit besides cost and appearance does art colors have for being in USA food?

I question the claims of all the risks of the artificial colors but I generally support this idea overall. Artificial colors have some benefits but I can't really think of a good argument not to go all natural.

Name one health benefit of artificial coloring chemicals.

i'm not talking about the marketing benefits or satisfaction of consumers.  Those are subjective and only benefit the sellers in the end -- i.e. getting more people to buy.

I'm also not talking about natural coloring substances which may be used -- only artificial, meaning produced by man.

What benefit besides cost and appearance does art colors have for being in USA food?

Artificial colors keep their colors through the cooking process. I tried the natural ones from Whole Foods and the colors change if you bake with them. Artificial colors also seem to be more vibrant

Name one health benefit of artificial coloring chemicals.

I am not familiar with any health benefit of artificial coloring which is why I didn't say there were any as you can see in my statement that you bolded yourself.

I am not familiar with any health benefit of artificial coloring which is why I didn't say there were any as you can see in my statement that you bolded yourself.

You said "I question the claims of all the risks of the artificial colors but I generally support this idea overall. Artificial colors have some benefits but I can't really think of a good argument not to go all natural."

Show me in that post where you stated artificial colorings have only non-health-related benefits.

Artificial colors keep their colors through the cooking process. I tried the natural ones from Whole Foods and the colors change if you bake with them. Artificial colors also seem to be more vibrant

You didn't answer my question.

I also look at it this way, other countries ban them as well.  So what do they know that we either are ignoring or don't know.  Like Canada and Japan and some European countries.

Why do brands make 2 different products, 1 with artificial coloring and 1 without?  So it is possible to make the product without it.

Canada has "free" health care so it behooves them to keep their citizens healthy.  Japan cares about their citizens as well as that's their culture for health.

You didn't answer my question.

My bad, I missed the part where you said appearance.

On your other point, I wonder if we could adequately screen imported foods for artificial colors. If all we do is make American foods more expensive requiring natural colors but imported foods can slip through on labeling technicalities then we end up just hurting american made stuff without eliminating artificial colors.

I also did some reading concerning Japan, they do allow artificial colors, even Red #3 which is banned here.

My bad, I missed the part where you said appearance.

On your other point, I wonder if we could adequately screen imported foods for artificial colors. If all we do is make American foods more expensive requiring natural colors but imported foods can slip through on labeling technicalities then we end up just hurting american made stuff without eliminating artificial colors.

I also did some reading concerning Japan, they do allow artificial colors, even Red #3 which is banned here.

Are you going to answer my question?

I admit I never googled artificial colors and Japan, but I have read many Japan made products and I have yet to come across any artificial colors. Things from candy to ramens.  These are Japanese products sold in HI and from Japan when friends bring things back home.  This is why I assumed they banned them.  I was wrong that they banned all artificial coloring.

My bad, I missed the part where you said appearance.

On your other point, I wonder if we could adequately screen imported foods for artificial colors. If all we do is make American foods more expensive requiring natural colors but imported foods can slip through on labeling technicalities then we end up just hurting american made stuff without eliminating artificial colors.

I also did some reading concerning Japan, they do allow artificial colors, even Red #3 which is banned here.

Screening is done first by the exporter (complying with "no artificial..." mandates), and then by US wholesalers and retailers who check ingredients before marketing.

Finally, the consumer screens what they buy, thus having a chance of reporting any artificial ingredients that are banned.  Once enough consumers opt to not buy a product due to the ingredients whatever they may be, the market force of demand will eventually stop the import iff the government or retailer is slow to act.

Saying "I wonder if we could adequately screen imported foods for artificial colors" is an oversimplification of how real world screening occurs.  it's not just at the point of entry into the US.

Are you going to answer my question?

I admit I never googled artificial colors and Japan, but I have read many Japan made products and I have yet to come across any artificial colors. Things from candy to ramens.  These are Japanese products sold in HI and from Japan when friends bring things back home.  This is why I assumed they banned them.  I was wrong that they banned all artificial coloring.

My answer had to do with color but I hadn't noticed you said appearance. I am not sure what, if any, other benefits there are than cost and color. Actually scratch that, there is at least one food dye that is made from insects so it wouldn't be vegan friendly. Not really a significant benefit to the vast majority of people though.

Screening is done first by the exporter (complying with "no artificial..." mandates), and then by US wholesalers and retailers who check ingredients before marketing.

Finally, the consumer screens what they buy, thus having a chance of reporting any artificial ingredients that are banned.  Once enough consumers opt to not buy a product due to the ingredients whatever they may be, the market force of demand will eventually stop the import iff the government or retailer is slow to act.

Saying "I wonder if we could adequately screen imported foods for artificial colors" is an oversimplification of how real world screening occurs.  it's not just at the point of entry into the US.

I get that but I don't trust that some places won't simply lie. Similarly to how companies have put fillers in food and not listed them on an ingredient. The worst case I recall was involving the baby formula in China. Of course even an American producer could do that as well.

I get that but I don't trust that some places won't simply lie. Similarly to how companies have put fillers in food and not listed them on an ingredient. The worst case I recall was involving the baby formula in China. Of course even an American producer could do that as well.

So you're saying you don't feel it's possible to catch most of the cheaters?  Feelings are not facts.

Even if there's an additional tariff that can be applied as an extra sanction to countries that allow banned food additives to be sent here?

They already do this in other countries.  Do you really think other countries are not already dealing with imports of banned artificial food additives?

1. **Yellow #5 (Tartrazine)**: This dye is banned in several European countries due to its potential link to allergies, hyperactivity, and behavioral problems in children.
2. **Yellow #6 (Sunset Yellow)**: Similar to Tartrazine, Sunset Yellow is banned in some European countries due to its association with allergic reactions and hyperactivity.
3. **Red #40 (Allura Red)**: Some European countries restrict the use of Red #40 over concerns of allergic reactions, hyperactivity, and its potential to exacerbate asthma symptoms.
4. **Blue #1 (Brilliant Blue)**: While still widely used in the United States, Blue #1 is banned in several European countries due to potential allergic reactions and links to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.
5. **Blue #2 (Indigo Carmine)**: This dye is banned in Norway, Finland, and France due to safety concerns and its potential adverse effects on health.

You like to argue that other laws don't have to catch 100% of criminals or deter 100% of crime since you enjoy asking whether we should have any laws if they aren't 100% enforced or obeyed.  Yet, here you are saying we can't ban artificial colors in foods because we can't enforce the bans 100% of the time?  Seems like your argument changes depending on which laws you want to support.

So you're saying you don't feel it's possible to catch most of the cheaters?  Feelings are not facts.

Even if there's an additional tariff that can be applied as an extra sanction to countries that allow banned food additives to be sent here?

They already do this in other countries.  Do you really think other countries are not already dealing with imports of banned artificial food additives?

You like to argue that other laws don't have to catch 100% of criminals or deter 100% of crime since you enjoy asking whether we should have any laws if they aren't 100% enforced or obeyed.  Yet, here you are saying we can't ban artificial colors in foods because we can't enforce the bans 100% of the time?  Seems like your argument changes depending on which laws you want to support.

I didn't say feel I said trust. I didn't expect such a blatant strawman even from you.

Of course we won't be able to catch 100%, I didn't even say anything about catching them, I only spoke of them lying. Two strawmen in one post! I guess when you can't find something to argue about you have to make it up 

I didn't say feel I said trust. I didn't expect such a blatant strawman even from you.

Of course we won't be able to catch 100%, I didn't even say anything about catching them, I only spoke of them lying. Two strawmen in one post! I guess when you can't find something to argue about you have to make it up

Trust is subjective and based on feelings.  If you had facts to base your trust on, you'd have said so.  Trust is synonymous with faith.  If something you trust turns out the opposite of the way you trusted it to be, then you obviously didn't have enough facts upon which to "trust" your decision.

So, am I right, or do you have any facts upon which you base your trust.

And it's not a strawman when you've used this argument many times, including red flag laws.

Trust is subjective and based on feelings.  If you had facts to base your trust on, you'd have said so.  Trust is synonymous with faith.  If something you trust turns out the opposite of the way you trusted it to be, then you obviously didn't have enough facts upon which to "trust" your decision.

So, am I right, or do you have any facts upon which you base your trust.

And it's not a strawman when you've used this argument many times, including red flag laws.

Wrong, lack of trust is based on past experiences, and I did give an example as well. Are you having a Joe Biden moment?

Of course it is a strawman, you pretended I made two arguments and then attacked them. Not sure why you have to try so hard to argue with me that you make up things to argue over.

But here is some data on the subject, which of course if you were really interested in you would have just asked me instead of assuming I didn't and then attacking me for your fake belief. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00003-021-01361-x