Invest in BEETS!! Get in on the GROUND FLOOR before BEET STONKS go BBRRRRRRR!!!1!one1!! 📈 🤑 🚀 🌕
BELOW the ground floor!
For real?
And is there a Lemmy equivalent to pre-2021 wallstreetbets?
Anyone want to take bets on how long until right wing influencers start talking about how Red No 3 cures COVID/cancer/brainworms and how the government is trying to take it away because of how good it is, while posting a video of themselves chugging gallons of it on TikTok to own the libs?
The government should make it illegal to drink bleach.
Bleach is apart of the health-supplement market and is therefore unregulated.
Nah, I’m fine with drinking bleach being legal.
I’ve no problem with idiots who drink it, they shouldn’t be allowed to give it to their kids though.
“Red is our color! white erasure!!!” /$
People have been making jokes about “Red #3 maxing” for months.
Anyone want to take bets on how long…
Longer than it took for someone to jump in here and make an off topic politically based comment.
He just wrote what we were all thinking.
C’mon: the halfwits were eating HORSE DEWORMER as a pandemic ‘cure’. The likely head of the CDC still thinks it’s a cure.
Gallows humour is just a way of dealing with the realization where America elected a felon faster than it could prosecute him.
I mean, the horse dewormer is also a people dewormer. It’s just that COVID isn’t a worm.
The point of pointing out that it’s a horse dewormer is that horses are a whole lot larger than us. Therefore their meds are stronger or they take larger doses. A lot of people took horse does of horse dewormer and literally shat out bits of their guts.
Ivermectin is a human antiparasitic too. But more importantly, I’m pretty most of this is just a myth. The stories I’ve seen about mass ivermectin hospitalizations turned out to be hoaxes, see e.g. here. If you literally took an entire horse-sized dose (200μg/kg for a 700kg horse, so 140mg) as a 60kg human, you’d get a dose of 2.3mg/kg, 11x the recommended amount for infestation - which has been tested in humans to be safe. Ivermectin is amazingly safe for a drug; you have to really try to get an overdose.
So I think a few people (seems to be ~several hundred for all of US in 2021) did somehow manage to actually get themselves poisoned (I’d love to know how; I think I saw a statistic once about what dosages were found in ivermectin poisoning cases but I can’t find it in my bookmarks, and the few actual case reports I can find don’t provide a dosage), but most of the “horse dewormer” stories in the media were just political propaganda.
(The above isn’t getting into the question of whether ivermectin is effective against COVID, though. I think it was reasonable to think so back during the start of the pandemic, since the studies were really quite suggestive, and it was a safe drug to try, and the studies weren’t even debunked at the end - rather, it was found that the improvements were most likely due to the drug treating the coincidental parasite infestations the patients had. It’s not so reasonable now that we have better studies and real working anti-COVID drugs, and the people who suggest taking ivermectin for COVID nowadays sure are crazies, but I personally would not shame people for doing it back in 2021 or so. Taking one of the only drugs that seemed to be effective against a terrifying pandemic is just a smart thing to do, if it’s this safe.)
Well, you have to make the bets before the thing happens, so….
Hi, I’d like to place a bet on last year’s Superbowl. I’ve got a good feeling.
Do Red40 next!
I puked anytime I ate anything with #40 in it as a child. I wasn’t about to let that get between me and red licorice though so I got over it as a teenager! 😅
I hope they get rid of #40 as well
Got a buddy that does the same thing as a 30+ adult.
100% makes him sick Everytime. I’d never heard of it until I met him.
MOD: In light of reports related to homeopathy:
There is a studied and demonstrated harm associated with homeopathy. However, claims made in ignorance of this will not be removed as misinformation at this time.
Read more: Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series | 2012
Sure. Ban Red Dye No. 3, but let’s allow all the homeopathic bullshit we want because hey why regulate that stuff? They just give it to kids.
I agree with you, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
This is barely “the good.”
A 1990 study concluded that “chronic erythrosine ingestion may promote thyroid tumor formation in rats via chronic stimulation of the thyroid by TSH.” with 4% of total daily dietary intake consisting of erythrosine B.[10] A series of toxicology tests combined with a review of other reported studies concluded that erythrosine is non-genotoxic and any increase in tumors is caused by a non-genotoxic mechanism.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythrosine#Safety
Humans are not rats and no one is eating that much Red Dye No. 3 a day.
From reading about it, it’s really a risk/reward call. Red 3 has no nutritional or flavor-enhancing purpose. It’s just a decoration, so why take any risk, however small?
Because this took a hell of a lot of time and effort and taxpayer money that the FDA could have spent on so many other more important things.
They do more than one thing at a time. It isn’t like all other evaluations stopped to look at red dye #3.
They have a limited amount of time and resources. What was spent on this could have been spent on something more dangerous.
Without investigating, it could have been more dangerous and we wouldn’t know.
These were the results. Not an issue that effects everyone, but enough that it should be banned.
There is nothing to complain about here. Thats how this works for anything being evaluated.
Why are you complaining about the FDA doing their job, rather than the large corps that likely lobbied to avoid this and make it much harder for them?
They banned it in cosmetics in 1990, it seems pretty obvious that if it’s unsafe for the outside of our body it shouldn’t be inside either.
They’re a troll. Don’t waste your time.
If they were doing their job, they would remove dangerous “herbal” remedies people are giving to their kids and hurting or even killing them, not something that has a small chance of causing cancer if you feed a shit ton of it to a rat.
As I showed to someone else, it took ten years for the FDA to get a company to voluntarily recall a product that was causing seizures in hundreds of babies. https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/13/homeopathy-tablets-recall/
That’s a deflection, not an answer
Are you aware that homeopathics and herbal remedies are completely different things?
I’d be curious about what the cost actually is?
Right so I mean—the cost of research and analysis and the entire process of determining the possible risks is money that simply must be spent either way, even on products that are ultimately deemed suitable for market. That’s the entire purpose of the FDA, to find these things out.
So we’re really just looking at the costs associated with the ban itself. Such as the labor hours of FDA employees setting it up? Communicating it to people? I agree with your concerns I’m just trying to get a sense of what we actually spent to arrive here
I can’t give you numbers, but it’s a federal regulation. A lot of reports have to get written and a lot of research has to be done, especially in the field of federal regulation as a whole, which is so insane that we literally have no idea how many federal laws there are. And then all of that documentation has to be read by other people and approved all the way up the chain. So we are talking a lot of people’s time and effort (which translates into taxpayer money) that could have better been spent on things which are causing active harm.
I’ve genuinely never seen someone play Devil’s advocate for a food dye of all things.
I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate, I’m saying this is a really minor good in the greater scheme of things and I imagine the cost and time breakdown in terms of what it took to accomplish took a lot away from other, more important things.
Doesn’t really matter since food dye is completely unimportant. Candy, cakes, and other foods will taste exactly the same without Red #3.
Better to eliminate any potential risks to ourselves and our pets/livestock than keep it around so Big Company can get better sales with their bright red whatever.
You willing to apply that logic to every unnecessary decoration in your life?
I mean, yeah. Potentially harmful but otherwise useless materials? I try to reduce those whatever possible.
That painting on the wall could potentially fall and break in a hazardous way. The point is: regulation for its own sake is theater and it’s impossible to account for every conceivable risk. If a product is plausibly harmful under normal usage, sure. If it causes cancer when force-fed to rats in impossible proportions? Leave it be, study further perhaps.
That painting on the wall could potentially fall and break in a hazardous way.
… And become like a dozen knives I have on a block 10 feet away? Okay.
The point is: regulation for its own sake is theater
No one is saying that’s not true. Why say that as if someone is saying it’s not true?
Well, to be fair, the painting ostensively offers a somewhat unique artistic value. There is a reward to go with the risk.
Red 3 is simply a way to make things red, which we have tons of other ways of doing that don’t have any known risks
There’s a reason that paint doesn’t have lead in it anymore.
Studies have also indicated this dye (and others) could cause hyperactivity and similar problems in children.
Any easy way to figure out 4% as grams in a human diet?
Assuming a person eats ~1.8kg of food per day, that would be ~72 grams. Basing that math off of a number I had heard previously stating that adults eat anywhere from 3-5lbs of food daily.
I bet we could tell who is eating 70+grams of Erythrosine by their color.
Thanks, I was wondering what was wrong with it.
Don’t worry, the republicans will complain about a war on red and it will be available again.
At least homeopathic anything is not directly harmful in the context of ingesting it, because it contains no active ingredient.
It’s only harmful in that people don’t understand that it’s bullshit and therefore believe that it works, and might skip actual effective treatment for whatever their ailment is in favor of cheaper (and totally ineffective) homeopathic whatever-the-hell. For that reason it should at least be regulated to the extent of having a big neon warning sticker on it that says, “This product is completely ineffective and accomplishes nothing other than setting your money on fire.”
I’m all for outlawing it from a consumer advocacy standpoint because it’s a scam, but otherwise it’s just expensive water.
Except that it’s ridiculously unregulated and it’s not even actually “homeopathic” half the time, it contains actual pharmaceuticals or even just straight up poison.
Here’s an example. It took ten years for the FDA to get this company to do a voluntary recall despite their product giving babies seizures.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/13/homeopathy-tablets-recall/
I’m amazed people aren’t aware of this stuff.
Yeah, that’s ridiculous.
Just slapping a “homeopathy” label on something with no oversight can’t be an automatic dodge-all to regulation. If Hershey needs to prove what they put in a candy bar, anyone hawking homeopathic products should need to prove what they put in there as well.
That’s the neat thing… They don’t. Hershey can claim anything new is “generally recognized as safe” and skip all that. It was meant to grandfather in actual foodstuff, but it left a loophole that’s frequently used to put in all sorts of substances not proven to be harmful
Homeopathic bullshit has no negative effect, it’s literally just water and sugar. As long as they are not prescription pills, the FDA does not regulate them because they are merely false advertising and not actually dangerous.
When done properly, it is just water. Hyland made some homeopathic teething tablets about a decade ago that used too much belladonna which killed several kids and paralyzed a few more because they did not dilute it to nothing.
That’s just murder and pretty sure the FDA pulled those.
Why was it allowed to get to market in the first place? Why were they allowed to use belladonna at all ( a known poison) without oversight?
Because Orrin Hatch pushed the “supplements” act back in the 1990s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994
Ah, so typical american ignorance
In a way. We’re not all stupid, I promise. Though the billionaires keep trying to make us all ignorant. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hatch or his relatives were heavily invested in the industry at the time. Keep in mind the US isn’t the only country that sells homeopathic bullshit.
Belladonna has actual medical use tho. It’s applied to dilate the pupils, so maybe they declared it wrong?
Yup, and I still think that any use of belladonna should have oversight from regulatory and medical professionals due to the fact that if you fuck up bad enough you (or others) die.
That’s like saying fire extinguishers filled with nothing but air are just false advertising. People have died taking these “treatments” when actual professional medical care would have saved them.
It would be more akin to fire extinguishers filled with air. It doesn’t accelerate illnesses any more than doing absolutely fucking nothing would.
A fire extinguisher filled with air can make a fire much larger.
That wasn’t a rebuttal, it was an admission of ignorance.
Only if the air is compressed. If you fill a fire extinguisher with literally just air, nothing happens if you pressed the nozzle. Everyone but you understood that. But it’s pointless to even type this as you already made up your mind, champ. Feel free to think you are a big mind.
Point in case: the dude I “rebutted” against (lol) agreed that their initial comparison (a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline) was not appropriate.
If we’re talking regular atmospheric air that has oxygen in it, blowing air can absolutely amplify a flame by providing oxygen to replace air that has already been burned. It’s very common to blow on camp fires to add heat, for example.
Needs to be pressurized. Else nothing happens (as in homeopathy where nothing happens; not sure what is hard to understand here honestly). I know how a fire works. But whatever, I’m done with this comment chain.
I wished I wouldn’t live on this planet anymore. Fuck all y’all.
Not being able to put out a fire isn’t the absence of a negative effect. It allows the fire to grow larger. Which is a negative effect.
Yeah I made an edit literally exactly same time as your comment as I thought about it.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t force people to seek legitimate medical help if they don’t want to.
Yeah, but you can regulate misinformation at best, or at worst intentional disinformation, which is what’s made these people think its a legitimate path in the first llace.
That’s the way homeopathic nonsense is supposed to work. Unfortunately bullshit like this isn’t regulated properly so it often ends up being dangerous.
They are actually dangerous in the sense that people believe they are buying medicine when they are not, and therefore do not receive proper, actual life saving treatment.
It doesn’t help when this crap is legitimized by being sold in actual drug stores like Walgreens.
Often right next to real medicine.
Homeopathy convinces people to take a mixture that has no active ingredient instead of one that can affect what they’re sick with. If it’s a cold, eh whatever. If it’s cancer, that’s incredibly dangerous.
They have until 2027?
Lmao, we know this is bad but what’s another 2yrs going to hurt…
If the ban was effective immediately a bunch of things would have to be pulled from shelves and that would impact everything from Acetaminophen to Maraschino cherries to some vegetarian faux-meats. There’s over 9,000 (lol) products across a wide number of industries that use Red 3.
We know it causes cancer in rats, but we have to think about the shareholders!
There is no evidence that it causes cancer in shareholders.
Shareholders are such scumbags.
Your comment prompted me to lookup when red 3 started to be used in food, but I couldn’t find anything. Can’t find who discovered it or when it was discovered either, weird. (There are claims but none with a credible source)
According to Material History Review (Fall 1994) it was discovered in 1876 by Adolf Kussmaul. No clue who first used it in food, corporations weren’t big fans of telling us what was in food back then.
I just found out minutes before I posted my comment someone added this information to the Wikipedia page lol.
Edit: huh, wait. Material History Review just says “Kussmaul (1876)”, are we sure it was Adolf Kussmaul? He was a physician, not a chemist. And it doesn’t reference any sources either… Was record keeping that bad back then?
I don’t know it seems like sometimes the mailman was discovering shit back then.
Aye, there’s a pattern of breathing named after him. In respect to the possibility of him being its ‘discoverer,’ there was a greater demand on physicians to be more than medicine dispensers back then. While these days you have a pretty clear divide between MDs that treat patients and MDs that do research, it wouldn’t surprise me if a physician in the late 19th century was formulating his own medications to test, and might have a hobby of experimenting with materials that didn’t pan out as medication.
Red #3 was invented by Red Foreman, obviously. It’s named after him.
Uhhh actually it was Red #4 obviously
Man did I love the 70’s show. Now I can’t watch it because most of the cast tried to protect that one dude. Even white knight Ashton kutcher
“the link between the dye and cancer does not occur in humans”
So just because it’s carcinogenic in rats means it’s banned. But sure, let’s keep selling cigarettes. This is just a big joke.
It’s a question of risk vs reward, not risk alone. I don’t imagine many would care if their candies look different, but if you take away cigarettes, you’re going to get a riot and lots of people going to the black market.
Cigarettes are fairly easy and obvious to avoid, disregarding the occasional whiff when you’re out and about.
Food additives less so, especially when in it’s in a lot of different foods and manufacturers may change previously “safe” formulas.
Who numbers all these dyes anyway?
Interesting question… After a small amount of research.
The FDA in the US and the INS globally. The number is just a sequential identifier, i.e., red #3 was approved before red #5.
EU too. It’s E127 there.
No. 2
Who does No. 2 work for?
That’s right, buddy. You show that turd who’s boss.
Just remember to breathe! Else you might blow out your O ring, drop a lung.
Yeah baby!
No. 1
🤯🤯🤯
To be reversed by Tuesday.
We need more concrete changes.
Concrete is fine the way it is
shrug
I thought Red No. 5 was the bad one. I feel like I remember that from somewhere.
Yellow 5.
Rumors of it killing sperm back in the days of Surge.
Surge. Now that’s a name I’ve not heard in a long time. A long time.
How are you knees/hairline?
😎
No issues with hairline, but I’m a woman so hopefully that’s not something I need to worry about. Knees? Seem ok but no injuries there in the past, thankfully.
Oh, dammit.
How’s your… Your…
Hmm…Too soon for menopause jokes unless you were in or beyond college for those references…
Hows that… Nostalgia for things not sucking treating you??
Hah! Got her.
Oh no! What about Big Red?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNMq3-mN0JU
EDIT: It’s OK, we still have Red 40
Don’t worry. It’ll be back on the menu in six days.
