> Food manufacturers will have until Jan. 15, 2027, to reformulate their products. Companies that make ingested drugs, such as dietary supplements, will get an additional year.
JFC how weak is that? Ban it NOW. Make them take all those products off the shelves. Throw them away.
If they're toxic, they're toxic. They shouldn't get to keep selling it because they already invested in the poison.
@feld It takes time to secure sources of proper ingredients. They can't just snap a finger and turn all of their poison into actual food - they need the ingredients.
Two years may be excessive, but immediately is far from enough time.
@feld@friedcheese.us 2027 is really too long. I'm not a food scientist, but I can't imagine how it would take that long to just remove it from current products (correct me if wrong). Like a few months tops seems even really generous.
Can't they just remove it immediately from newly manufactured food? Who cares if the soda and candy will now have a strange looking color for a few months. It's not going to taste any different.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating I thought about this some more as well and you know what? There is no need for them to wait. The supply chains are there. They sell most of these products in the EU where this is already banned. So they know exactly how to make it with something else.
We're just letting them use their current inventory.
As an individual consumer, I would in love to see a lot of these companies burn to the ground.
Practically, you have to keep in mind that people expect food manufacturing to function. Preventing these things from happening by forcing rapid action doesn't just hurt those corporations, but the people who depend on the product they produce. Some of these products are as lame as cheetos, but some of them - cough syrups and some types of pediasure in particular - are pretty essential and halting their production would be very bad.
@feld I think certain companies would have to ramp up production of cleaner products in order to meet that demand, which takes time...I will say that the overly lax amount of time given to meet this demand lends credence to your explanation. However, I think demanding instant change is still wrong.
I will say that the fact we're having this conversation is a sure sign that this legislation is long overdue. Lots of food companies are overly reliant on the stuff, ink should've hit paper on this a decade ago.
@feld Having thought about it a little more, I am annoyed to have come to the conclusion that two years is right to expect any regulation of agricultural products to start to take place.
Let's pretend for a moment that Red 3 is going to be replaced by some chili pepper extract. You generally want to plant those basically now. The next opportunity to successfully demand more peppers is next year: January 2026. You can maybe expect the chili peppers to be ready in July or August, 2026. That's about two years.
Because it's a food coloring - that is, it's not really necessary - this might be an exception. However, that two year timeline makes a lot more sense as a general rule of thumb, and I see where that delay comes from now.
...That said, the FDA should have an expert on hand who would have been able to point out what the most likely replacement is, and the timeline could have totally been tightened up.
@feld In the case of Red 3 specifically, I think that ink hitting paper two months ago could have made it possible for us to expect these changes almost a year sooner. It's infuriating, and a reminder that wasting time now on this can result in far more wasted time later.