2aHawaii
General Topics => Health, Fitness, and First Aid => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on April 22, 2025, 01:07:08 PM
-
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
-
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
Wrong.
Past experience is nothing but anecdotal evidence. By definition, there's nothing scientific, logical or measurable about it.
e.g. I raised 10 pit bulls over 30 years, and i never once had any of them attack me nor my family nor anybody else. Based on PAST EXPERIENCE, I conclude that i can TRUST pit bulls to not attack anyone.
However ....
Of the 4.5M dog bites treated each year, over 84% were by pets versus strays. Pit bulls are involved in more dog attacks than any other breed. In fact, the American Animal Hospital Association reports this breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2%. (Mixed may also contain Pit bull genes in significant numbers given the popularity of the breed which may in turn contribute to such a high rate of attacks similar to pit bulls alone).
There is no magic formula for trust. Do you trust your spouse? Why? Because she has never cheated on you in the past? Seven years later, she starts deleting all the phone call and text data in her phone several times a day. Does your level of trust change? By how much?
As they say in advertising for investments, "Past performance does not guarantee future results." Your trust can't be quantified or explained by "past experience." it's a feeling -- period.
Your mistrust in our ability to identify imports that break bans of ingredients is unsupported by the data you provided. That link demonstrates that the government and safety watchdog groups are, in fact, making a successful effort in tracking those who "lie" about food product information. Seems to me you just posted a link that supports the opposite of your conclusion that you can't trust that some places won't simply lie. if they are being caught and monitored, then my trust level would go up.
Ever watch the 80s movie "War Games?" In the finale, when all the data on the displays told the military we were under thermonuclear attack by the USSR, they instead decided to trust the lead characters telling them it was a simulation. Even though all the available evidence pointed to an attack, they trusted that the people who knew the computer were telling the truth, and that all the screens and satellite images were false. It's a movie, but how they made that decision was not fiction.
-
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.
If it's made from insects, then it isn't "artificial". So why are you bringing that up? Are you trying to move goal post?
-
If it's made from insects, then it isn't "artificial". So why are you bringing that up? Are you trying to move goal post?
Arsenic (As) and Plutonium (Pu) are chemical elements found in nature. I guess they are safe since they aren't "artificial."
Side note: It's very difficult to generate 1.21 gigawatts of power without Plutonium. So, that's a plus for naturally occurring radioactive material.
-
Arsenic (As) and Plutonium (Pu) are chemical elements found in nature. I guess they are safe since they aren't "artificial."
Side note: It's very difficult to generate 1.21 gigawatts of power without Plutonium. So, that's a plus for naturally occurring radioactive material.
All you need is a Mr. Fusion, it's not hard at all as you can put banana peels in it and a beer can.
-
All you need is a Mr. Fusion, it's not hard at all as you can put banana peels in it and a beer can.
But, you still need sufficient electricity to get the machine into the future so you can have Mr. Fusion installed, since it's not yet invented. The hover conversion would also be an option while it's in the shop.
-
But, you still need sufficient electricity to get the machine into the future so you can have Mr. Fusion installed, since it's not yet invented. The hover conversion would also be an option while it's in the shop.
easy. We need to invent things that haven't been invented yet. You know what I mean?
-
easy. We need to invent things that haven't been invented yet. You know what I mean?
We? You got a mouse in your pocket? :geekdanc:
-
If it's made from insects, then it isn't "artificial". So why are you bringing that up? Are you trying to move goal post?
You asked for a benefit to the artificial color. The artificial color could be labeled vegan/vegetarian while the one made from bugs could not be.
-
Wrong.
Past experience is nothing but anecdotal evidence. By definition, there's nothing scientific, logical or measurable about it.
e.g. I raised 10 pit bulls over 30 years, and i never once had any of them attack me nor my family nor anybody else. Based on PAST EXPERIENCE, I conclude that i can TRUST pit bulls to not attack anyone.
However ....
Of the 4.5M dog bites treated each year, over 84% were by pets versus strays. Pit bulls are involved in more dog attacks than any other breed. In fact, the American Animal Hospital Association reports this breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2%. (Mixed may also contain Pit bull genes in significant numbers given the popularity of the breed which may in turn contribute to such a high rate of attacks similar to pit bulls alone).
There is no magic formula for trust. Do you trust your spouse? Why? Because she has never cheated on you in the past? Seven years later, she starts deleting all the phone call and text data in her phone several times a day. Does your level of trust change? By how much?
As they say in advertising for investments, "Past performance does not guarantee future results." Your trust can't be quantified or explained by "past experience." it's a feeling -- period.
Your mistrust in our ability to identify imports that break bans of ingredients is unsupported by the data you provided. That link demonstrates that the government and safety watchdog groups are, in fact, making a successful effort in tracking those who "lie" about food product information. Seems to me you just posted a link that supports the opposite of your conclusion that you can't trust that some places won't simply lie. if they are being caught and monitored, then my trust level would go up.
Ever watch the 80s movie "War Games?" In the finale, when all the data on the displays told the military we were under thermonuclear attack by the USSR, they instead decided to trust the lead characters telling them it was a simulation. Even though all the available evidence pointed to an attack, they trusted that the people who knew the computer were telling the truth, and that all the screens and satellite images were false. It's a movie, but how they made that decision was not fiction.
More strawmans. I never said anything about our ability to identify imports that break bans.
:stopjack:
-
More strawmans. I never said anything about our ability to identify imports that break bans.
:stopjack:
We can fill volumes and volumes with all the things you should have, could have, but didn't say.
-
You asked for a benefit to the artificial color. The artificial color could be labeled vegan/vegetarian while the one made from bugs could not be.
This post just answered your own question and showed you've proved yourself wrong. "artificial color could be labeled...". Which means it's still artificial as you used the word "artificial".
Just admit you know no benefit of artificial colors besides presentation and cost. Since it took you this long and still haven't posted any, I will take it you're wrong again.
-
We can fill volumes and volumes with all the things you should have, could have, but didn't say.
I could say more but such comments about you would likely get me banned :shaka:
-
This post just answered your own question and showed you've proved yourself wrong. "artificial color could be labeled...". Which means it's still artificial as you used the word "artificial".
Just admit you know no benefit of artificial colors besides presentation and cost. Since it took you this long and still haven't posted any, I will take it you're wrong again.
You don't make sense. How would I admit I know of no benefit of artificial colors beyond cost and appearance when I just listed the benefit of being labeled vegan? I said there were benefits, you asked for benefits besides cost and appearance. I didn't come up with any significant ones (vegan label isn't significant). So what? You didn't prove me wrong in anything, I said there were benefits and by your own statement you admit there were benefits. Why are you trying to turn that into an argument? No need to derail another thread, just post your thoughts on the proposed ban.
:stopjack:
-
You don't make sense. How would I admit I know of no benefit of artificial colors beyond cost and appearance when I just listed the benefit of being labeled vegan? Why not just accept that and move on with the discussion instead of some desperate attempt at scoring some sort of irrelevant win? You going to hold up your statement that the only benefit is appearance and cost as some sort of trophy or triumph over me?
I said there were benefits, you asked for benefits besides cost and appearance. I didn't come up with any specific ones (vegan label isn't significant). So what? You didn't prove me wrong in anything, I said there were benefits and by your own statement you admit there were benefits. Why are you trying to turn that into an argument? No need to derail another thread, just post your thoughts on the proposed ban.
:stopjack:
We can also label artificial colors "nuclear deterrence" and since no nukes have been released toward another country, it must work.
Of course there are benefits to artificial colors. Like cost and presentation. But outside of those, I don't know of any. Which is why I specifically said besides those 2, what are the benefits. Then you made up some random vegan thing to try to find a way instead of just stating "IDK of any benefits outside of those 2". See how simple things are. And seeming how long it took you, that would imply that you didn't know of any and needed time to try to find something.
Besides, your vegan statement still doesn't matter cause it affects color/presentation anyways. So it's still a poor example.
-
We can also label artificial colors "nuclear deterrence" and since no nukes have been released toward another country, it must work.
Of course there are benefits to artificial colors. Like cost and presentation. But outside of those, I don't know of any. Which is why I specifically said besides those 2, what are the benefits. Then you made up some random vegan thing to try to find a way instead of just stating "IDK of any benefits outside of those 2". See how simple things are. And seeming how long it took you, that would imply that you didn't know of any and needed time to try to find something.
Besides, your vegan statement still doesn't matter cause it affects color/presentation anyways. So it's still a poor example.
Nuclear deterrence? Are you having a Joe Biden moment?
What are you even trying to argue? I am not trying to "get out" of anything. I specifically said "I am not sure what, if any, other benefits there are than cost and color." I then threw in the vegan label as an example of a very minor benefit for the sake of technical accuracy.
-
Nuclear deterrence? Are you having a Joe Biden moment?
What are you even trying to argue? I am not trying to "get out" of anything. I specifically said "I am not sure what, if any, other benefits there are than cost and color." I then threw in the vegan label as an example of a very minor benefit for the sake of technical accuracy.
Since you're not sure and you're unable to post any, you should retract your statement. "There are no benefits to artificial coloring besides color and presentation". It's very simple. Your examples are like usual poor ones.
What's a Joe Biden moment?
-
Since you're not sure and you're unable to post any, you should retract your statement. "There are no benefits to artificial coloring besides color and presentation". It's very simple. Your examples are like usual poor ones.
What's a Joe Biden moment?
I did post one. You should get your memory checked.
You never qualified how good it had to be, you only say it is a bad example in the face of me proving you wrong. Guess you can't admit that huh?
-
I did post one. You should get your memory checked.
You never qualified how good it had to be, you only say it is a bad example in the face of me proving you wrong. Guess you can't admit that huh?
Wrong. hahhahaa Thanks for playing.
-
Wrong. hahhahaa Thanks for playing.
Keep telling yourself that, one of these days you will catch me saying something wrong.
-
Keep telling yourself that, one of these days you will catch me saying something wrong.
Everyone knows this but you.
-
Walmart says they will remove all artificial coloring from Walmart brand products. This is over 1,000 products.
-
My friend posted inside foodland and how the Gatorade now has no artificial coloring there. IDK which location.
-
I understand the health aspect of banning it.
But gotta admit, it makes the food look more ono. :rofl:
-
Char Siu and Kau Yuk can do without the red.
-
Char Siu and Kau Yuk can do without the red.
What about Li Hing Mui? I've seen the whitish one and it looks funny.
The UK bans this because they have a system of " we will ban it until you prove it's safe". Think opposite of innocent until proven guilty. And no company has put the effort to do so, or maybe they did and can't prove it's safe. Then kept it hush hush so it doesn't affect the USA market.