amino

I can't find any sources saying Red 40 has been banned. You're probably confusing it with the recent Red 3 ban by the FDA?

Speaking of the FDA Red 3 ban, this decision was motivated by the Delaney Clause, not by any scientific evidence showing harm to humans. The FDA's own studies found it safe for human consumption, yet the aforementioned outdated legislation gives them a legal obligation to deem said ingredients unsafe. source:

Studies showed that male rats exposed to very high levels of Red #3 developed thyroid tumors. Here's the crucial context: this occurred through a hormone mechanism specific to male rats that doesn't exist in humans. The FDA's own analysis shows a 210-fold safety margin between typical human exposure (0.25 mg/kg body weight per day) and levels causing effects in rats (35.8 mg/kg per day).

Even more telling: studies in other animals - including female rats, mice, gerbils, and dogs - showed no cancer effects. Human studies have consistently failed to show evidence of harm at normal exposure levels.

Some additional context you might find useful.

For the same reasons, Red 40 causing cancer in mice in really high roses doesn't imply a causation of harm to humans

totally normal way to respond to a scientific critique of misinformation

what's the source for your candy being carcinogenic?

we use antibiotics in the EU as well. it also doesn't affect meat taste, the reason why it's regulated is to prevent antibiotic resistance

CR uses shit science, doesn't open source their papers, isn't peer-reviewed and goes against WHO and FOA recommendations. source

CR's latest article on heavy metals in chocolates advised readers that "kids and pregnant people should consume dark chocolate sparingly, if at all, because heavy metals pose the highest risk to young children and developing babies."

But medical toxicologists who spoke with Ars disagreed with the "sparingly, if at all" suggestion.

"I don't see evidence that pregnant people or children will be harmed from eating food from time to time with concentrations at the levels described in the article," Stolbach told Ars.

he's a US citizen that lives in the US, that's how

you could argue machine learning like Google translate is useful. it's still evil though because Google.

generative ai though? absolutely not, we need to burn it down.

it doesn't matter whether abolition is realistic or not. the same thing could be said in 1980 about owning a supercomputer that fits in your pocket

thanks for the rec

this is simply the liberal "if you don't vote then you deserved it" rhetoric repackaged. we're not interested since our goal isn't to work inside the system as abolitionists

anyone who calls AI a form of life is too far gone to collaborate with

based