Yeah they should be able to wind down the cancer doses in an orderly fashion. We wouldn’t want to hurt their EBITDA
Comment on US bans controversial red food dye, decades after scientists raised alarm
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 6 days agoIt’s kind of understandable though. It would be pretty shitty to tell companies using completely legal means that they have to immediately change their products and methods or shut down.
TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 6 days ago
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Yea man, lets swing around the power of government wildly to conform with whatever the headlines say today, absolutely and without mercy. I’m sure that will create a functional society.
TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 5 days ago
headlines
Do you mean the Food and Drug Administration regulator? The one that’s about to be gutted in a week?
What about people getting cancer for a company’s benefit is key to a “functional society” to you?
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
You really ought to learn to hold more than a single thought in your head at the same time. It’s a very valuable skill which helps navigate this crazy life, like recognizing in this case that there are ordinary people relying upon their jobs to feed their families who would be significantly harmed if the government were to focus exclusively on one thing only when making decisions.
emzili@programming.dev 5 days ago
What a ridiculous response, the dye’s link to cancer has been known for decades. The EU banned use of it in 1994, over thirty years ago, and its already banned in China and Japan. Trying to paint a government ban of a known carcinogen as “big daddy government running peoples lives” is pure idiocy.
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Try actually comprehending what you read. I’m saying it’s understandable that they’re giving companies time to adjust their formulas/processes. I have not once said the ban is a bad idea. Frankly, as my first comment stated quite clearly, I’m very happy this is happening.
Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Any company with competent or moral leadership should have been phasing this out before it was legislated. The information was available for a long time. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to give short timelines. As you said above though, it’s good news so we can focus on that.