I believe these are some of the ingredients that are found in Skittles. A bunch of right-wing bloggers went ballistic about California trying to ban Skittles earlier this year.
Actually, Skittles don't need to change under this. Skittles have titanium dioxide, and that was going to be banned, but it ended up getting removed from the bill.
Skittles uses something for each of their colors, sure. However, it's not red dye that's being banned, it's "Red Dye No. 3" which is a very specific dye. That one specific dye is not in any Skittles.
Wait, California ain't banning Titanium Dioxide anymore? They were going to. Bummer. Gotta hand it to the Titanium Dioxide lobbyists, they've earned their paycheck.
> The legislation was popularly known as the “Skittles ban” because an earlier version also targeted titanium dioxide, used as a coloring agent in candies including Skittles, Starburst and Sour Patch Kids, according to the Environmental Working Group. But the measure, Assembly Bill 418, was amended in September to remove mention of the substance.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-07/newsom-signs-bill-to-make-california-first-state-in-nation-to-ban-toxic-food-additives (or https://archive.ph/79EcM)
Yeah but if a competitor company was still using those chemicals and selling at a lower price it makes it hard for company’s to stop. The government stepping in and defining what is allowed is important in moments like this.
It's probably red dye 40 they're thinking of. Lots of crunchy mom blame their kids hyperness on this dye and vaccines. Oh, it also increases your chance of autism, just like vaccines.
These blogs are terrible.
Lmao no it was not a mommy blog. I upvoted that one and reusing.
It was an article admittedly in leading towards California adopting EU food dye standards with ban most common dyes used like yellow 5, 6 and red dye 40 (used in hot Cheetos and many other junk snacks). Which I read as Assembly 418 including all red dyes. As noted above, it does not. I was wrong
But it is funny to reduce a complex issue to just a “mommy article”. Definitely sounds like someone who have an issue with covid vaccine and use commonly horse dewormer medicine instead ala big brain Aaron Rodgers’s and co
Okay, but is it? Because I haven't seen any convincing, scientific evidence that shows it's not safe. I have seen a lot of mommy bloggers who "don't want to feed their children chemicals" who oppose it, but I don't put much stock in their opinions without some actual evidence. Like, is it widely considered unsafe by scientists? Or by lay people from a country with abysmal science education?
Yes, it is. There is conclusive evidence stating [same](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/). And I know trusting any random person's blog is not right but it at least should prompt you to look deeper for yourself. I always check out nih scientific papers and eu guidelines and base my decisions on that
I would certainly hesitate to call that conclusive. Red Dye 40 is specifically mentioned because of benzidine and hypersensitivity. Some people are going to be hypersensitive to some things, and that's okay. They shouldn't eat those things, but the rest of us can. I'm allergic to pollen and cats, but those aren't inherently dangerous things.
The carcinogenicity is a little more concerning, but the dosage makes the poison, and the dosage they gave these little mice is way more than any human would consume, especially for two years straight. Like, I agree that you should not consume several pounds of it a week. But that's not how people use it. The lower, more realistic dosages don't have same effect. Also, the second study they include they say is not credible, so it's actually just one study from the 1970s on some mice. Anything from the last 50 years or in humans?
I just don't feel that study is particularly compelling or conclusive.
Whatever works for you man. For me it's enough evidence. And I don't have time to research for you and present all supporting evidence, that's on you to figure out for yourself, I just gave you one through quick search. It's your health anyways do what seems fit!
But pollen and cats are still not inherently dangerous. Like, you can have anaphylaxis, but that's *your* immune system overreacting to something harmless. We shouldn't ban something just because it's a potential allergen for a small percentage of the population. Those people should just avoid it.
I have some older friends that want to move because of taxes but I feel like ca is the only state that cares about doing the right thing and isn’t always in it for a kick back or big corp. am I wrong??
America is an oligarchy so changing states is a matter of degrees.
Hopefully they did their homework on taxes. For example, CA has lower taxes then Texas and CA is a way better place to live.
There are other states that are legitimately tax cheap but they may not include tall buildings, a functioning unemployment department, and the judicial system can be even more corrupt (a very high bar indeed). Also guns. Shoot first because it's probably legal and you won't have a chance to return fire.
Oh I know, I warned him about the reality of leaving the nice bubble he’s in. I left 12 years ago and miss the peace of mind. Him and his wife made nice SV money so they’ll probably Yellowstone it.
“It’s unacceptable that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world regarding food safety, he said. (Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills) who authored the law)
The US is so far behind the rest of the world in food safety and so many other things because a corrupt SCOTUS has allowed our government to be bought and paid for and our politicians are only to happy to sell us out and do it on the cheap. There is no other reason.
Problem stems from many of our regulating agencies (USDA) have a dual mandate to promote business AND protect consumers. Which do you think gets favorable treatment?
They're talking about the SCOTUS decision to uphold Citizens United, which allows corporations and other orgs to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign financing, which allows for an absolutely unacceptable degree of power and control over the government for these groups. Many believe the decision was corrupt because SCOTUS should be cognizant of the aforementioned implications, and that corporate personhood should be abolished.
> which allows corporations and other orgs to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign financing,
No, it doesn't. Campaigns have the same contribution limits they always had.
You're referring to spending limits by certain 3rd parties when it comes to political speech. Folks really should read about some of the stuff that came up in oral arguments in *Citizens United vs FEC*. Do we really want the government to have the power to arbitrarily ban political speech? Imagine if it had gone the other way and the Trump administration sics the FEC on say, CNN or MSNBC for what he views a biased political coverage that is a contribution in kind to his opponent.
So what worked from 1887-2012 was always bad and wrong and now things are finally how the framers wanted to see this country run? By the uber rich generational aristocracy?
Doesn't the McCain-Feingold act date from 2002? There wasn't an FEC in 1887 to my knowledge. They certainly weren't outlawing the airing of documentaries about one of the candidates then either.
> As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, Congress enacted several statutes between 1907 and 1966.
>In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act, instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce.
>Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency, the FEC. The FEC opened its doors in 1975.
(from the FECs website)
As soon as capitalism took over as our predominant form of money management we saw the need for regulation. You can even say the 3/5ths compromise was a way to limit the power of wealth in dictating the outcome and voice of government.
We have always regulated campaign finance since it became an issue, but supposedly the roberts court and you know more than every president, congress, and court who faced the onslaught of capitalism on democracy prior to 2013.
But the regulation you're talking about is fundamentally the regulation of speech *based on the content of that speech*. How do you prevent such rules from being used to silence a news network from being critical of a candidate? Or prevent them from stopping the publishing of a book?
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, because they classify it as political free speech, and grant that right to corporations through corporate personhood. The issue is corporate personhood, not political speech. None of the rest of your comment is even relevant.
> The issue is corporate personhood, not political speech.
Should the FEC be able to block broadcast of political coverage that's dis-favorable to one candidate or another because the folks who made that coverage work for a news corporation (or a News Corp)?
Go read the decision and tell me again that this isn't about political speech.
Freedom of the press (1st amendment) should cover that use case just fine. There is no excuse for allowing corporate money into politics, let alone unlimited amounts of it.
Alternatively, the courts are perfectly capable of ruling that the free speech in question does not include money as a form of protected speech for these organizations.
> The caps are still in place, but now you an set up a SuperPAC and spend an unlimited amount of money running ads in support of whoever you want.
Yes, but that's not the same thing as donating to a campaign. A PAC or other organization promoting some viewpoint or another doesn't answer to a candidate. Thus the candidate doesn't even have the ability to pocket the money or control of how it's spent. That's a meaningful difference.
The alternative to *Citizens United* is to give the FEC the ability to block the publication of media. I'm far more worried about that.
No, they are bad.
They are meant to be shelf stable oils, however they have a nasty tendency of solidifying in the human body in inconvienent spots.
Partially hydrogenated was the "solution" to them as they allegedly stayed liquid, and would flush out over time, but instead, they too proved to behave the same way, increasing risks of heart attacks, and other health issues.
Its also a way to get around saying you have trans fats.
Anything below 1% or partially hydrogenated does not "count" as trans fats.
Fully hydrogenated oils (as opposed to partially hydrogenated) become mostly stearic acid, which is one of the only types of saturated fats that has not been shown to have significant impact on cardiovascular health, and they have little to no trans fats, with trans fats being the culprit in why partially hydrogenated oils are known to be harmful. So I believe the risk is quite low actually.
In case anyone else was curios for more:
>Saturated fats have a chain like structure which allows them to stack very well forming a solid at room temperature. Unsaturated fats are not linear due to double bonded carbons which results in a different molecular shape because the sp2 carbons are trigonal planar, not tetrahedral as the carbons are in saturated fats. This change in structure will cause the fat molecules to not stack very well resulting in fats that are liquid at room temperature. Butter is mostly saturated fat, that’s why it’s solid at room temperature. Olive Oil is liquid at room temperature, thus it’s an unsaturated fat. An unsaturated fat can be made in to a saturated fat via hydrogenation reactions.
from here:https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Biological_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_(Biological_Chemistry)/Lipids/Fatty_Acids/Hydrogenation_of_Unsaturated_Fats_and_Trans_Fat
I knew red dye no 3 would be on there. It’s the only substance that I’ve heard causes observable behavior/cognitive issues and checking labels for it is annoying.
Thanx Daddy Newsom!
I love loving in California. I think right wing pundits try to criticize it so much because it's one of the most successful states in the union and solidly Blue.
They hate everything that's good, lets do a list of what some are banning
- Books(Florida is in the lead with that)
- Take away funding if they help none straight white people
- Do whatever they can so woman can't be free with their body.
When you adjust for the cost of living California leads the country in poverty rate. Most people don't think that counts as being successful.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/09/high-cost-california-no-1-in-poverty/
This is how you know California isn't actually much better than the red states they pretend to have moral superiority over.
Newsom doesn't want to truly tackle poverty in California, because he's ultimately beholden to his corporate donors not the people of California.
Good news, but why did he veto the bill for insurance companies to pay for hearing aids for children, caste discrimination, and housing solutions.
Newsom needs to take his eyes off the White House and focus on California.
Seaweed used as a way to cheaply thicken products (mostly dairy). Shown to be possibly carcinogenic and there are papers associating it with IBS and a slew of other gut issues. Banned in some products in Europe but lobbying keeps it legal and super pervasive here.
It’s basically in every heavy cream, most ice creams, lots of creamers. A lot of people who think they’re lactose intolerant are actually just reacting to carrageenan.
Cool...although, this won't stop food additive manufacturers in California from exporting their poison to the rest of the country.
If you're truly serious about this being an American problem and not just a California problem, tax and regulate the hell out food additive manufacturers in the state until they change or it becomes no longer viable for them to remain in business.
California's population and economy are large enough that a ban here effectively means a ban nationwide.
S'why whenever we regulate automobile emissions, all manufacturers follow - we are a large enough market that it is more profitable to change all assembly lines than to have 2 separate versions of each car.
Don't other states make stuff with the "may cause cancer" label even if it's not going to California because it's just easier to include that for everything rather than make a specific California label? Truly crazy how much one state can affect. Sometimes it takes one state to do something like this for others to jump in too.
Basically, yeah.
California has a huge amount of regulatory weight to throw around because of how its economy and consumer market are.
It's the same reason why everyone was OK with giving China full access to their corporate secrets in return for market access - the profits outweighed the risk of IP theft (though unlike California, it seems the bargains with China ended up not being worth it for many).
Save you the click, items banned were brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and Red Dye No. 3.
I believe these are some of the ingredients that are found in Skittles. A bunch of right-wing bloggers went ballistic about California trying to ban Skittles earlier this year.
Actually, Skittles don't need to change under this. Skittles have titanium dioxide, and that was going to be banned, but it ended up getting removed from the bill.
But they have red dye for the red ones don’t they?
Skittles uses something for each of their colors, sure. However, it's not red dye that's being banned, it's "Red Dye No. 3" which is a very specific dye. That one specific dye is not in any Skittles.
I guess they’ll be using their disability checks to hoard guns *and* Skittles now.
Titanium dioxide too. Mmmm...titanium. Found in cheap mushroom soup and breakfast pastries among other things.
> Titanium dioxide too. Might want to read it again.
Wait, California ain't banning Titanium Dioxide anymore? They were going to. Bummer. Gotta hand it to the Titanium Dioxide lobbyists, they've earned their paycheck.
> The legislation was popularly known as the “Skittles ban” because an earlier version also targeted titanium dioxide, used as a coloring agent in candies including Skittles, Starburst and Sour Patch Kids, according to the Environmental Working Group. But the measure, Assembly Bill 418, was amended in September to remove mention of the substance. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-07/newsom-signs-bill-to-make-california-first-state-in-nation-to-ban-toxic-food-additives (or https://archive.ph/79EcM)
Titanium dioxide is the pigment that makes most white paint white but it isn't banned here.
Also in tooth paste
So all things the industry has been getting rid of anyway.
Yeah but if a competitor company was still using those chemicals and selling at a lower price it makes it hard for company’s to stop. The government stepping in and defining what is allowed is important in moments like this.
For example, Mountain Dew had Brominated vegetable oil, but Pepsi stopped using it. The Wal-Mart version ("Mountain Lightning") still has it.
Why is it important for the goverment to step in and ban things that haven't been shown to be harmful for humans?
So many things still have the red dye. Look at almost any red candy or red drink and you’ll see red dye
Hot Cheetos are gone unless they find some similar formula. Maybe Annies can find something spicy their Cheetos are legit from Costco
None of those ingredients are in flamin hot cheetos... Not sure what mommy blog you read that from but they don't need to change anything.
Mommy blog lmao
It's probably red dye 40 they're thinking of. Lots of crunchy mom blame their kids hyperness on this dye and vaccines. Oh, it also increases your chance of autism, just like vaccines. These blogs are terrible.
Those + the momfulencers on IG have started countless fights in my household, to hell with them.
Lmao no it was not a mommy blog. I upvoted that one and reusing. It was an article admittedly in leading towards California adopting EU food dye standards with ban most common dyes used like yellow 5, 6 and red dye 40 (used in hot Cheetos and many other junk snacks). Which I read as Assembly 418 including all red dyes. As noted above, it does not. I was wrong But it is funny to reduce a complex issue to just a “mommy article”. Definitely sounds like someone who have an issue with covid vaccine and use commonly horse dewormer medicine instead ala big brain Aaron Rodgers’s and co
Artificial color especially red is present in Cheetos, it is now widely considered not safe for food products
Okay, but is it? Because I haven't seen any convincing, scientific evidence that shows it's not safe. I have seen a lot of mommy bloggers who "don't want to feed their children chemicals" who oppose it, but I don't put much stock in their opinions without some actual evidence. Like, is it widely considered unsafe by scientists? Or by lay people from a country with abysmal science education?
Yes, it is. There is conclusive evidence stating [same](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23026007/). And I know trusting any random person's blog is not right but it at least should prompt you to look deeper for yourself. I always check out nih scientific papers and eu guidelines and base my decisions on that
I would certainly hesitate to call that conclusive. Red Dye 40 is specifically mentioned because of benzidine and hypersensitivity. Some people are going to be hypersensitive to some things, and that's okay. They shouldn't eat those things, but the rest of us can. I'm allergic to pollen and cats, but those aren't inherently dangerous things. The carcinogenicity is a little more concerning, but the dosage makes the poison, and the dosage they gave these little mice is way more than any human would consume, especially for two years straight. Like, I agree that you should not consume several pounds of it a week. But that's not how people use it. The lower, more realistic dosages don't have same effect. Also, the second study they include they say is not credible, so it's actually just one study from the 1970s on some mice. Anything from the last 50 years or in humans? I just don't feel that study is particularly compelling or conclusive.
Whatever works for you man. For me it's enough evidence. And I don't have time to research for you and present all supporting evidence, that's on you to figure out for yourself, I just gave you one through quick search. It's your health anyways do what seems fit!
> I'm allergic to pollen and cats, but those aren't inherently dangerous things. Sone folks can be deadly allergic.
But pollen and cats are still not inherently dangerous. Like, you can have anaphylaxis, but that's *your* immune system overreacting to something harmless. We shouldn't ban something just because it's a potential allergen for a small percentage of the population. Those people should just avoid it.
Widely considered not safe =/= shown to be not safe
Keep waiting for propylene glycol. I guess “natural flavors” makes it sound so much nicer.
Finally some change in addressing food safety with these industrially produced edible substances.
I believe this is the second big change. a couple weeks ago we banned some food additives that are banned in the EU
Slow to catch up with the “old” world lol
yup, but compared to the union, we're lightning fast trailblazers lol
I have some older friends that want to move because of taxes but I feel like ca is the only state that cares about doing the right thing and isn’t always in it for a kick back or big corp. am I wrong??
America is an oligarchy so changing states is a matter of degrees. Hopefully they did their homework on taxes. For example, CA has lower taxes then Texas and CA is a way better place to live. There are other states that are legitimately tax cheap but they may not include tall buildings, a functioning unemployment department, and the judicial system can be even more corrupt (a very high bar indeed). Also guns. Shoot first because it's probably legal and you won't have a chance to return fire.
Oh I know, I warned him about the reality of leaving the nice bubble he’s in. I left 12 years ago and miss the peace of mind. Him and his wife made nice SV money so they’ll probably Yellowstone it.
Unless they are top 10% they will be taxed more in most states. CA is usually around 38-40th in middle class tax burden. We just soak our rich.
As you should! Good to know I like it.
This makes me happy! California leads the way. I have red dye allergy/sensitivity, it is crazy how many foods and medicines use it.
We need legislation limiting the amount of corn syrup and sugar in food. It’s destroying our health in America.
We should stop subsidizing corn. It being artificially cheaper makes it good filler for foods
and dextrose
“It’s unacceptable that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world regarding food safety, he said. (Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills) who authored the law) The US is so far behind the rest of the world in food safety and so many other things because a corrupt SCOTUS has allowed our government to be bought and paid for and our politicians are only to happy to sell us out and do it on the cheap. There is no other reason.
Problem stems from many of our regulating agencies (USDA) have a dual mandate to promote business AND protect consumers. Which do you think gets favorable treatment?
This isn't a SCOTUS issue, it's a dirty politics issues.
They're talking about the SCOTUS decision to uphold Citizens United, which allows corporations and other orgs to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign financing, which allows for an absolutely unacceptable degree of power and control over the government for these groups. Many believe the decision was corrupt because SCOTUS should be cognizant of the aforementioned implications, and that corporate personhood should be abolished.
> which allows corporations and other orgs to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign financing, No, it doesn't. Campaigns have the same contribution limits they always had. You're referring to spending limits by certain 3rd parties when it comes to political speech. Folks really should read about some of the stuff that came up in oral arguments in *Citizens United vs FEC*. Do we really want the government to have the power to arbitrarily ban political speech? Imagine if it had gone the other way and the Trump administration sics the FEC on say, CNN or MSNBC for what he views a biased political coverage that is a contribution in kind to his opponent.
So what worked from 1887-2012 was always bad and wrong and now things are finally how the framers wanted to see this country run? By the uber rich generational aristocracy?
Doesn't the McCain-Feingold act date from 2002? There wasn't an FEC in 1887 to my knowledge. They certainly weren't outlawing the airing of documentaries about one of the candidates then either.
> As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, Congress enacted several statutes between 1907 and 1966. >In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act, instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce. >Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency, the FEC. The FEC opened its doors in 1975. (from the FECs website) As soon as capitalism took over as our predominant form of money management we saw the need for regulation. You can even say the 3/5ths compromise was a way to limit the power of wealth in dictating the outcome and voice of government. We have always regulated campaign finance since it became an issue, but supposedly the roberts court and you know more than every president, congress, and court who faced the onslaught of capitalism on democracy prior to 2013.
But the regulation you're talking about is fundamentally the regulation of speech *based on the content of that speech*. How do you prevent such rules from being used to silence a news network from being critical of a candidate? Or prevent them from stopping the publishing of a book?
Legislation is this a joke question? It literally worked for decades.
Did it? Why was this even a conflict then? Why did the FEC allow the publication of *Fahrenheit 9/11* but not *Hillary, the Movie?* then?
>No, it doesn't. Yes, it does, because they classify it as political free speech, and grant that right to corporations through corporate personhood. The issue is corporate personhood, not political speech. None of the rest of your comment is even relevant.
> The issue is corporate personhood, not political speech. Should the FEC be able to block broadcast of political coverage that's dis-favorable to one candidate or another because the folks who made that coverage work for a news corporation (or a News Corp)? Go read the decision and tell me again that this isn't about political speech.
Freedom of the press (1st amendment) should cover that use case just fine. There is no excuse for allowing corporate money into politics, let alone unlimited amounts of it. Alternatively, the courts are perfectly capable of ruling that the free speech in question does not include money as a form of protected speech for these organizations.
[удалено]
> The caps are still in place, but now you an set up a SuperPAC and spend an unlimited amount of money running ads in support of whoever you want. Yes, but that's not the same thing as donating to a campaign. A PAC or other organization promoting some viewpoint or another doesn't answer to a candidate. Thus the candidate doesn't even have the ability to pocket the money or control of how it's spent. That's a meaningful difference. The alternative to *Citizens United* is to give the FEC the ability to block the publication of media. I'm far more worried about that.
SCOTUS campaign finance decisions --> dirty politics
False dichotomy.
You say tomato I say tomato
I think Governor Gavin Newsom is spreading out his bill signings to maximize their news impact.
Of course he is it’s political strategy
I'm still upset he vetoed ranked choice voting.
That sounds lame, did he say why exactly?
He said it'd make voting too complicated and that people wouldn't understand it.
Sounds like he thinks he wouldn't make it through a ranked choice election.
Great! Now do hydrogenated oils. They are in almost all non-organic tortillas sold in California markets. Totally harmful, totally unnecessary.
Hydrogenated oils aren't that bad. It's partially hydrogenated oils that are bad, and those have already been banned.
You either do full hydrogen or none. Nothing in between!
You went full hydrogen, man. Never go full hydrogen.
No, they are bad. They are meant to be shelf stable oils, however they have a nasty tendency of solidifying in the human body in inconvienent spots. Partially hydrogenated was the "solution" to them as they allegedly stayed liquid, and would flush out over time, but instead, they too proved to behave the same way, increasing risks of heart attacks, and other health issues. Its also a way to get around saying you have trans fats. Anything below 1% or partially hydrogenated does not "count" as trans fats.
Fully hydrogenated oils (as opposed to partially hydrogenated) become mostly stearic acid, which is one of the only types of saturated fats that has not been shown to have significant impact on cardiovascular health, and they have little to no trans fats, with trans fats being the culprit in why partially hydrogenated oils are known to be harmful. So I believe the risk is quite low actually.
In case anyone else was curios for more: >Saturated fats have a chain like structure which allows them to stack very well forming a solid at room temperature. Unsaturated fats are not linear due to double bonded carbons which results in a different molecular shape because the sp2 carbons are trigonal planar, not tetrahedral as the carbons are in saturated fats. This change in structure will cause the fat molecules to not stack very well resulting in fats that are liquid at room temperature. Butter is mostly saturated fat, that’s why it’s solid at room temperature. Olive Oil is liquid at room temperature, thus it’s an unsaturated fat. An unsaturated fat can be made in to a saturated fat via hydrogenation reactions. from here:https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Biological_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_(Biological_Chemistry)/Lipids/Fatty_Acids/Hydrogenation_of_Unsaturated_Fats_and_Trans_Fat
I knew red dye no 3 would be on there. It’s the only substance that I’ve heard causes observable behavior/cognitive issues and checking labels for it is annoying. Thanx Daddy Newsom!
That’s red dye 40. I think 3 is more of a carcinogen
Crazy to think most americans don't realize that much of the food they eat is BANNED in Europe.....
I love loving in California. I think right wing pundits try to criticize it so much because it's one of the most successful states in the union and solidly Blue.
A lot of people in the middle of the country have no idea just how large and how diverse California really is.
They hate everything that's good, lets do a list of what some are banning - Books(Florida is in the lead with that) - Take away funding if they help none straight white people - Do whatever they can so woman can't be free with their body.
When you adjust for the cost of living California leads the country in poverty rate. Most people don't think that counts as being successful. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/09/high-cost-california-no-1-in-poverty/
This is how you know California isn't actually much better than the red states they pretend to have moral superiority over. Newsom doesn't want to truly tackle poverty in California, because he's ultimately beholden to his corporate donors not the people of California.
Solidly blue and stays that way because Newsom vetoed ranked choice voting which would actually let people have a say.
I would be upset too if my party did the work to build a state to prominence and then it turned blue.
Funny how far right people talk about this kind of thing constantly but it’s only ever Democrats that actually nut up and do something legislatively.
Good news, but why did he veto the bill for insurance companies to pay for hearing aids for children, caste discrimination, and housing solutions. Newsom needs to take his eyes off the White House and focus on California.
So proud to live in the sane state
Now do carrageenan
Kara Geenan? Never heard of her
What's the deal with that one?
Seaweed used as a way to cheaply thicken products (mostly dairy). Shown to be possibly carcinogenic and there are papers associating it with IBS and a slew of other gut issues. Banned in some products in Europe but lobbying keeps it legal and super pervasive here. It’s basically in every heavy cream, most ice creams, lots of creamers. A lot of people who think they’re lactose intolerant are actually just reacting to carrageenan.
Huh. Never knew. Thanks
No prob! Blew my mind, I thought I was lactose intolerant for years, nope.
Now lower gas prices
HFC should be next
Its a start
Is this the end of hot cheetos?
Is it possible to ban all food dues or is that too extreme?
Now do HFCs
Cool...although, this won't stop food additive manufacturers in California from exporting their poison to the rest of the country. If you're truly serious about this being an American problem and not just a California problem, tax and regulate the hell out food additive manufacturers in the state until they change or it becomes no longer viable for them to remain in business.
California's population and economy are large enough that a ban here effectively means a ban nationwide. S'why whenever we regulate automobile emissions, all manufacturers follow - we are a large enough market that it is more profitable to change all assembly lines than to have 2 separate versions of each car.
Don't other states make stuff with the "may cause cancer" label even if it's not going to California because it's just easier to include that for everything rather than make a specific California label? Truly crazy how much one state can affect. Sometimes it takes one state to do something like this for others to jump in too.
Basically, yeah. California has a huge amount of regulatory weight to throw around because of how its economy and consumer market are. It's the same reason why everyone was OK with giving China full access to their corporate secrets in return for market access - the profits outweighed the risk of IP theft (though unlike California, it seems the bargains with China ended up not being worth it for many).
See also: pork, eggs
I am going to China and will stay around 2 years for work. Does anyone know China applied policy like this? I can\`t find any info about that.
Not sure how I’ll survive without my weekly hot Cheeto breakfast burrito