California Becomes First State to Ban Four Harmful Chemicals in Food

by Professional_Cod_754

25 comments
  1. These chemicals were banned in Europe in 2008 after they did a comprehensive review of food additives. A similar bill is making its way through the New York state legislature that will ban the same four chemicals plus titanium dioxide.

  2. Hopefully big manufacturers decide it is more cost effective to remove the chemicals from their products in all states

  3. > Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the California Food Safety Act, the first law in the U.S. to ban four harmful chemicals from candy, cereal, soda, and other processed food sold and produced in the state.

    > Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills) authored the law, **which ends the food uses of brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and Red Dye No. 3.**

    > These chemicals are linked to human health issues, including hyperactivity, nervous system damage, and an increased cancer risk.

    > All four additives are already banned by European regulators, with the narrow exception of Red Dye No. 3 in candied cherries.

    Gotta do whatever we can to keep unbridled capitalism from killing us all for a short-term boost in profits.

  4. Next ban added sugar. Why do they add sugar to spaghetti sauce, bread, bean and cheese burritos—literally everything. Why?

  5. Other people have posted that the EU banned this in 2008.

    Congrats, the US is at least 15 years behind civilization…

    Things like this are so very frustrating, since it is much needed progress, but goddamn, it didn’t have to be progress, it could have been old news.

    Just a rant I guess, pissy today

  6. Save you a click:

    brominated vegetable oil

    potassium bromate

    propylparaben

    Red Dye No. 3

  7. Great! Do aspartame next, like in the UK.

    We don’t want cancer when you sell the same drinks elsewhere without it. 

  8. The California Food Safety Act was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Thank you Governor!

  9. There is quite a lot of hyperbole in this article. Just so everyone understands, as a general rule, food additives need to meet a bar to be considered “safe” and failing to meet that standard is not the same thing as “harmful” and every country makes that determination themselves, sometimes with coordination like the EU or the WHO.

    Let’s take Erythrosine (Red Dye 3 or E127). In the US (except now CA) it is approved for food but not cosmetics. In the EU it is approved only in candied cherries. In Canada, it is approved for food. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) conducted studies on this dye and established an allowed daily limit of 0.1 MG / kg of body weight / day.

    In 2011, an EU scientific panel re-evaluated this and concurred, recommending no changes to the dose limits (why the dye is still approved for candied cherries).

    >The Panel considered Erythrosine has a minimal effect in humans at a clinical oral dose of 200 mg daily over 14 days, while a dose of 60 mg daily was without effect (Gardner et al., 1987).

    >The Panel concludes that the present database does not provide a basis to revise the ADI of 0.1 mg/kg bw/day. The Panel concluded that at the current levels of use intake estimates for adults on average is 0.0031 mg/kg bw/day and 0.01 mg/kg bw/day at the 95th percentile, and consequently are below the ADI of 0.1 mg/kg bw/day. The Panel considered there would be no safety concerns at current levels of exposure including other sources of exposure.

    DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.1854

    https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1854

    In short it is a lot more complicated and not just a case of “America is so far behind” or whatever. There is not a clear consensus on harm at current dose limits (so calling this dye “harmful” is a stretch) just different risk profiles. Red 40 / E129 are more common anyway (and approved in both the US and EU) with Red 3 primarily being used in cherries (which is also an approved use in the EU).

    I’m not doing a similar breakdown on the other listed additives and I am not making a scientific or moral case for or against any of them (including red 3). I just wanted to call out the complete lack of context in this article (and many others) that make people scared and think that US food is “harmful” or “unsafe.”

  10. Geez those companies were going to get to it eventually. Super promise ok?

  11. It effectively bans it in the u.s. unless food manufacturers want to create 2 separate food processing centers

  12. I’m not in cali but I take this serious. If it’s not good enough for California then it good for you.

  13. Same exact thing happened to me. Asked for the paypal and it was an Asian name written in Chinese. She was a black woman in Nevada. She said it was her “cousin.” Tried to also say she isn’t a business and can’t accept goods and services. She then said pay with facebook , its guaranteed. People try so hard.

  14. The only people who actually want these particular chemicals in their foods are corporations and the soulless husk of the stakeholder.

    Literally no one else should be upset by this.

  15. I’m willing to bet there’s some boot lickers upset about this and claiming food will cost more money.

Leave a Reply