A new report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest argues that synthetic dyes should be banned because they pose "A Rainbow of Risks" without any real benefits.
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (3)
Oddly enough, I am not in favor of banning certain named ingredients. I am more in favor of listing the ingredients as what they are, and leaving it up to the consumer to decide what they are willing to consume. Which leaves me, as a consumer myself, looking to have honest ingredient labeling. Because banning a certain ingredient doesn't perforce mean it, as itself, is no longer allowed to be added to our foodstuffs if the FDA (or whatever organization) allows variants of the same banned ingredient to be added under a different name. Look at the history of MSG for this argument.
Call it what it is, tell us honestly what's in our foodstuffs, and let us decide for ourselves whether we want to buy and ingest it.
- 1 vote
I agree with this. I think it's borderline criminal to be adding all these useless and potentially harmful chemicals to our food supply, but I'm just not sure how I feel about the government controlling what we eat (or don't eat). I waver back and forth on the issue - sometimes I think they should be banned, and other times I don't. But I do agree that food manufacturers should be required to list every ingredient in their products and tell it like it is. I've seen ingredient lists with seven kinds of sugar that were all renamed so that sugar wouldn't be listed as the primary ingredient. There are also ingredients that food companies don't have to list (I think glutamate, related to MSG, is one of them). They should have to list them so consumers can be better informed.
We as consumers are responsible for our food choices, but in order to make good ones, we need all the information to be available to us.
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



