Some members of the MAHA action praised the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to outlaw Red No. 3, an synthetic dye that gives foods products a red or pink colors. Social media was flooded with the news, and some X users were appreciative of the action. Detractors are protesting the restrictions, contending that it lacks solid scientific evidence and violates the freedom of choice, but their arguments are unfounded.  ,
The commonly accepted say is that the additive, which brightens all from brightening Froot Loops to putting the crimson in red velvet cake, is harmful. According to the FDA, which invoked the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which forbids them from granting permission to” a food additive or hue antioxidant if it has been shown to cause cancer in humans or creatures,” this is the justification for the ban. California even determined Red No. 3 to bring on child neurodevelopmental problems, which led to the 2023 restrictions.
Some are concerned, but, claiming the walk constitutes government overreach. They worry that the potential energy that the MAHA activity and RFK Jr. did possess in the new leadership is just beginning to deteriorate. Actually Trump was wary of Kennedy’s passion for regulation, warning him,” Left the fuel to me. … Bobby, stay away from the wet metal. Other than that, go have a good time, Bobby” . ,
Some claim that the data supporting the dye’s cancer-causing effects is poor and causes food additive sensationalism. In a film, Steve Milloy, who uses the name @junkscience on X, said,” The meal officers and food moms are trying to scare you with the idea that the food industry is poisoning us and our children with different foods chemicals.”
He asserts that Red No. A second study from 1987 that found an excessive amount of the colour over 30 times caused a statistically significant amount of lab rats to produce thyroid adenomas rests on the fact that 3 causes cancer. Milloy says this doesn’t show Red 3 causes cancers,” not even close”. He claimed that female rats are” a bad model for studying thyroid results in people” and that the rats ‘ lesions were all harmless.
According to Milloy, “rats are no small people after all,” noting that a 66-pound child consumes 184, 000 red jelly bean daily.  ,
The National Confectioners Association used the same reasoning to resist Pennsylvania’s expenses to outlaw the use of colour in food. ” Enough is enough — Pennsylvania is the latest in a series of state that is proposing to destroy our national food safety program in an emotionally-driven plan that lacks medical backing”, said Chris Gindlesperger, the group’s senior vice president of public matters and contacts.
These kinds of disputes between market lobbyists would have likely been met with scorn from conservatives who argued that any illegal ban from the authorities constitutes overreach in the old days. But over the past few years, Americans, and an increasing number of liberals, have become extremely wary of” the science”, asking for common feeling when it comes to making decisions concerning their health.  ,
Leftists may argue republicans are being dishonest. After all, it’s liberals who frequently invoke the Second Amendment to stop the government from launching a gun after every class killing, a horrible and all-too-frequent occurrence with much worse devastating consequences than Red No. 3. It’s liberals who don’t want the government to impede our conversation or gas-powered automobiles or Covid therapeutics. So why are we up in arms over what, according to the “science”, could be a pretty trivial chemical color antioxidant made from gas, chemically known as erythrosine?
Why was this chemistry with no health value put in our foods in the first place, in the first place? To make bad food choices appealing to children, artificial food colouring was added. The substance is usually found alongside sugar in foods such as chocolate, grain, and juices. Taking out the substance does not negate a favorable good for everyone. Preference will not be abandoned, just one technique to marketplace junk meals to kids. Alternatives to colour meals in other countries where the colour has been prohibited include natural ingredients that have no harmful effects, like vegetables.
The additive’s deceitful machinations are demonstrated by the criticism from those who stand to gain from keeping the pigment in food. The International Association of Color Manufacturers, which represents the colour chemicals economy, is backed by the colour, which is” secure for its intended purposes,” according to a report in The Washington Post. She contends that removing the dye from products will increase costs for consumers.  ,
If the intended audience was just a ploy to sell junk food, then RFK Jr. is correct: It’s time to care more about our children’s health than the profits of corporations that use deceptive tactics to promote junk food.  , Conservatives aren’t fans of a heavy-handed government, but we’re also not fans of experimenting on God’s perfect human design.  ,
Furthermore, the debate also highlights the difference between conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives are not opposed to government intervention. We’re opposed to ill-defined government intervention, wielded by an unelected bureaucracy captured by corporations, that lacks the support of those who are supposed to have the ultimate say: we the people.  ,
When Red No is concerned. 3, we the people have spoken. Finally, someone is listening.  ,
