The irony of RFK Jr
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
He is not qualified or a good guy. Wtf. |
Anonymous
That’s one of the things that I was thinking. AFAIK, those aren’t meaningful sources of data to start with if the focus is supposedly on autism. |
Anonymous
| What people need is to get him to do some good by hyping and motivating him to address major issues. If he does few stupid things, those can be changed once he is gone. We do need a crazy shaker to fight food and pharma. |
Anonymous
How would you suggest getting him “to do some good” exactly? It’s fascinating to me that people make suggestions like this. Remember when Presidents mostly just nominated the best people they could find for the job, those people had appropriate training and experience, and they didn’t need to be “hyped and motivated” by unspecified hypers and motivators to do their critically important jobs? |
Anonymous
Even IF dyes were 100% safe, no question about it, God/Nature/Science/SpaceAliens/Thor all agreed they were safe, WHY would you still want unnecessary colorings in your food? |
Anonymous
Oh you sweet summer child..... that you actually believe that..... |
Anonymous
Your opinions are noted, but there are 400 million people in the USA with opinions also. It's best to deal with facts instead. |
Anonymous
this does make sense, because when Michelle Obama and democrats tried to improve people's eating habits, the voters-who-would-become-MAGA went ballistic and screamed about the nanny state. This is how you know that the GOP has truly become a cult. If Trump is for something, they're for it. Russia. Banning food dyes. TARIFFS for god's sake. These are all things the GOP of 15 years ago would have fought against tooth and nail. (FWIW, there are some reasonable food dyes/additives to ban but the way RFK wants to do it would eliminate about 60 percent of the food in your grocery store). |
Anonymous
Why do we need to fight pharma? The Sackler situation is not typical. Pharma does more good than harm. People repeat this but what do they really mean? I take life-saving meds and so do family members. Thank God for that. |
Anonymous
Exactly!!! The free market encourages these companies to do the research and sell their medicines. If there is no financial incentive the r&d doesn't get done and the medicines don't get developed. The alternative is to nationalize the r&d and pharmaceutical industry, in which case the diseases that get attention (and the r&d and medicines developed for) would be subjected to political and bureaucratic influence. As a woman, I sure as hell wouldn't want Donald Trump's HHS deciding which diseases to research and develop cures/treatments for. So if you're saying "fight Pharma" be clear on exactly what you're talking about and what you think the problem is, and your solutions. |
Anonymous
I had eliminated food dyes from our diet for years and then did a deep dive on the research. They really aren’t that bad for you. There are much, much worse things in our food chain. I’d start with getting rid of antibiotics in animals, increase monitoring for bacterial contamination, increase research on the harms of monoculture (eg if we are only eating on variety of wheat, there are effects on our body of that lack of diversity), and figure out a way to minimize plastics in our food chain (probably the most important but also the most difficult because there are significant trade offs with expense and transport of certain products like berries that are very good for you). Food dyes would be way way way down the list, and I think almost all educated food scientists would say the same. But RFK isn’t very bright, doesn’t understand scientists, and gets obsessed with certain ideas that he then won’t abandon. So here we are. |
Anonymous
|
I worked for a paint mfg for 10 years. Titanium dioxide is a key ingredient in higher end white paints. It is a colorant that makes white really really white. Cheaper white paints have less to zero titanium dioxide.
I don’t want an ingredient that we put on our interior and exterior walls of our house in my food supply. Titanium dioxide is extensively used in making prescription drugs, OTC drugs, and processed foods all to make these items sparkling white. I am team RFK 100%. |
Anonymous
Your argument downplays the potential risks of food dyes while prioritizing other food chain issues, but it overlooks key evidence and dismisses concerns too hastily. Food Dyes and Health Risks: While you claim food dyes "aren't that bad," research suggests otherwise. Studies, like those published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2016), link synthetic dyes (e.g., Red 40, Yellow 5) to hyperactivity and behavioral issues in children, particularly those with ADHD. The FDA acknowledges potential risks, requiring warnings in some countries (e.g., EU). Long-term effects, including carcinogenicity, remain understudied, as noted in a 2021 Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology review. Dismissing dyes as benign ignores this uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Relative Harm Argument: You argue that antibiotics, bacterial contamination, monoculture, and plastics are worse, but this creates a false hierarchy. Food dyes are pervasive in processed foods, affecting millions daily, whereas issues like antibiotic resistance, while serious, are more systemic and less immediate in consumer exposure. The cumulative impact of dyes—consumed regularly by children—warrants scrutiny, especially since they’re often non-essential additives. Monoculture and Plastics: Your focus on monoculture’s harms (e.g., wheat diversity) lacks specificity and evidence tying it to acute health outcomes compared to dyes. Plastics are a valid concern, but microplastics’ health impacts are still emerging, whereas dye-related behavioral effects are better documented. Prioritizing plastics over dyes doesn’t negate the need to address both. Food Scientist Consensus: You claim "almost all educated food scientists" dismiss dye concerns, but this is an overgeneralization. Scientists like those at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have long advocated for stricter dye regulations, citing health risks. The debate is far from settled, and your assertion ignores dissenting expert voices. RFK Critique: Labeling RFK as "not very bright" and "obsessed" is ad hominem and irrelevant to the science. His advocacy, while sometimes overstated, aligns with legitimate concerns raised by researchers and consumer groups. Dismissing him outright avoids engaging with the evidence he references. In conclusion, while antibiotics, plastics, and other issues are critical, food dyes aren’t as harmless as you suggest. Their widespread use, potential health impacts, and non-essential nature justify higher scrutiny than you assign. Addressing them doesn’t preclude tackling other food chain problems—both can and should be priorities. |
Anonymous
|
I am the prior poster.
Colorants like titanium dioxide are added to our food supply, our prescription drugs, and our OTC drugs for marketing purposes only. Titanium dioxide is not a food. There is no reason for us to be ingesting products with titanium dioxide. Again, I don’t want to eat foods that have ingredients that we used to paint our interior and exterior walls. |
Anonymous
|
Mankind ate food without petroleum based food dyes since millennia. Other than “marketing “ there is no reason for food dyes to be in our foods.
Titanium dioxide makes baked goods whiter, nsaid pills sparkling white, and even cheeses whiter. It makes prescription pill tablets, sparkling, and shiny white.. Ever since I worked at the paint factory, I stopped eating foods that have titanium dioxide and other food dyes. |