- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: You may no longer be able to “taste the rainbow” in California
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:46 am to stout
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:46 am to stout
quote:
Corn syrup is more dangerous than sugar
Both cause heart disease. It's not a contest. And both are more dangerous than the "cancer causing additives" that the hysterical marxists want banned.
quote:
Wait, earlier you told me that we shouldn't rely on the Government to tell us what is safe and what isn't.
We should not. You are an adult and should know that fricking skittles is not on the food chart pyramid. That doesn't negate the fact, that the FDA has food standards, and the mission of the FDA, when it was founded, was to protect the consumer. Do you really believe California is trying to protect the consumer?
quote:
Even that, outside of local farmers markets, can't be sold in stores unless the person growing it has passed a safety and health check and can source with paperwork the farm it came from so technically it has a warning label too.
Technically, it does not. It goes through safety checks and protocols. Established by the FDA. The same FDA that also establishes "safe amounts" of these "cancer causing" additives.
2
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:47 am to BugAC
quote:
I got banned by the food babe on her facebook page several years ago, because she went on this rant about "cancer causing additives in beer". There is a specific additive you can put in beer that removes chill haze from that beer and clarifies it. It comes from fish bladders. Well, in high enough proportions, yes this additive may cause cancer. However, the brewing industry does not come close to using that amount. But, that dumb bitch was all in. And despite several people, and brewers telling her she's being a hypochondriac, she decided to ban everyone that tried to educate her.
That's what this thread feels like. There are safe levels and unsafe levels. By law, these candy companies can't put unsafe levels of these additives in here. California, the home of open and free drugs, and banning plastic straws, wants to "protect you" from this harmful candy.
Do you really think California has your best interests in mind?
I do think nuance is being overlooked in this thread and your posts being downvoted to hell kind of proves it.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:47 am to parrothead
quote:
It’s almost like “big food” and “big pharma” are in the same bed continually keeping people sick and thinking they need them as a crutch.
Yet you are relying on big government to protect you, who is in bed with both.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:49 am to stout
What is failed to be mentioned is how many pounds of skittles must a person eat in one sitting to be negatively affected by these additives.
I have never eaten one skittle in my life but I have eaten a pack of Reese's Pieces and they were pretty good.
I have never eaten one skittle in my life but I have eaten a pack of Reese's Pieces and they were pretty good.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:50 am to stout
quote:
Do they really need to dye tomato soup to make it redder?
No. Of course not.
Is that justification for banning something though? Because that seems....dangerous.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:51 am to BugAC
quote:
Yet you are relying on big government to protect you, who is in bed with both.
Literally just said I did NOT support this initiative
*Gordon Ramsey idiot sandwich gif
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:52 am to BugAC
quote:
You are an adult and should know that fricking skittles is not on the food chart pyramid
Why are you avoiding the part of the article that mentions not just candy would be affected? In fact, some food on the food pyramid would be affected.
BTW, I know why you and Roger only harp on the skittles and not the other items. My question was rhetorical because both of your arguments lose validity when it mentions bread being affected.
quote:
Do you really believe California is trying to protect the consumer?
I think your view is a bit warped because it's CA doing it.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:53 am to Salmon
quote:
Is that justification for banning something though? Because that seems....dangerous.
I am all for raising standards of foods that are supposed to be healthy or are considered staples. I couldn't care less about candy.
This post was edited on 3/17/23 at 8:54 am
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:54 am to stout
DO IT
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:54 am to themunch
quote:When I was a kid, it was said that the next big earthquake would cause California to break off from the North American continent.
Ban California problem solved
I'm still waiting.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:55 am to stout
Had Florida done this years ago, Trayvon might still be alive.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:59 am to stout
quote:
My question was rhetorical because both of your arguments lose validity when it mentions bread being affected.
Let's discuss bread and potassium bromate
LINK
There has been no studies linking potassium bromate in consumption in bread in any animal trials. Japan and the UK have done extensive studies on this.
The only time cancer was observed in animal studies were when they gave mice extremely high doses by directly ingesting it in their water supply.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:00 am to Tarps99
quote:
How much is it also because the corn lobby that advocates for subsidies for ethanol was pushing for corn syrup as a sugar replacement before ethanol came along?
Find any consumer law and regulation, you'll find competitors involved.
The more accurate headline would be "State legislator from the San Fernando Valley decides some additives aren't safe even though FDA disagrees."
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:06 am to stout
quote:
Why are you avoiding the part of the article that mentions not just candy would be affected?
Because nothing in the article describes toxicity levels. It's really that simple.
quote:
My question was rhetorical because both of your arguments lose validity when it mentions bread being affected.
So, if California was allowed to legislate everything "bad" according to their standards, then by that rationale, there would be a law against sun light. There would be a law against walking on grass. There would be a law against living, in general. Everything in this world is trying to kill you. And it will, eventually. But there are safe amounts and unsafe amounts. Why aren't they discussing UNSAFE amounts of these additives?
quote:
I think your view is a bit warped because it's CA doing it.
Do you support the legalizing of weed? DO you know what happens when you inhale pot smoke, health wise?
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:06 am to Salmon
quote:
The only time cancer was observed in animal studies were when they gave mice extremely high doses by directly ingesting it in their water supply.
Aren't there other studies that show small amounts in bread over time can lead to cell mutation?
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:08 am to stout
quote:
Aren't there other studies that show small amounts in bread over time can lead to cell mutation?
no
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:09 am to stout
quote:
Aren't there other studies that show small amounts in bread over time can lead to cell mutation?
The study I linked did 3 and 5 generation studies on mice and found no negative effects or abnormalities.
There might other studies that found something different with different dosage rates.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:09 am to stout
quote:
Why are you avoiding the part of the article that mentions not just candy would be affected?
Funny thing about this article. This link that you didnt' read, that was inside the article.
Lawsuit claiming Skittles are ‘unfit’ for consumption due to toxin dismissed
quote:
It said its use of “small amounts” of titanium dioxide did not harm the plaintiff, and complied with Food and Drug Administration regulations.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:11 am to stout
I am surprised that no hasn’t filed a suit against starburst for cultural appropriations for that slogan because it offends gays.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 9:13 am to stout
Is this more of a health hazard than human feces on the sidewalks?
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News