California 'Skittles Ban' Advances to Governor's Desk

California 'Skittles Ban' Advances to Governor's Desk, Here's What It Means for Consumers

https://www.foodandwine.com/california-food-safety-act-7969095

I am not against regulating food ingredients and personally, would not consume skittles or most processed foods. This would make it appear as though there was a genuine concern for public health. What do you think?

 

Do mice die of cancer normally if not shot trapped or poisoned.

 

This is the literal role of government
We have one of the most unhealthy populations in the world with increasing rates of cancer, diabetes and lowered levels of life expectancy.

Pretty much all artificial dyes need to be banned with the worst being the reds and blues.



Our food and lifestyle is literally killing us

 

Lazy glutinous disgusting fat Americans. We’re # 1…We’re # 1…We’re # 1

 

Is there anything that doesn't cause cancer? Heck, I expect any day now some liberal crackpot activist scientist to announce that breathing causes lung cancer.

 

heavily processed seed oils are a danger to our health, for sure

but I do fear giving the government too much power to control our diet, we see what a bad job they did of the food pyramid

 

That probably depends on what is breathed.

 

I think it has nothing to do with food safety but rather has everything to do with power and control.

 

sadly, many want to ban red meat too, claiming cow farts gonna kill us - when really they are just vegans that hate meat cause the smell of it makes them want to eat it - they already tried to get us all to stop eating one of the healthiest foods... eggs, and of course the anti-butter push, telling use to eat margarine

 

Do as I do regardless of what appeals to you. Serious human weakness.

 

I dont see it as the role of govt to protect us from ourselves. Require labeling. Dont ban products.

...I dont eat skittles, because I read food labels.

 

We'll be eating Soylant Green, if the Leftists have their way.

 

actually the right too, the right fights for the corps too, as this bad stuff is so profitable for them, big donations come their way if they do... left or right

there is a reason "GMO" doesn't have to be on labels

 

not only do we have issue with processed food, but what we consider healthy food is often less nutritious than in the past

 

How is that working out for us as a society?

 

I remember a time when the news was telling us canned tuna fish was bad for our brains. And at another time there was also a cancer scare if you consumed cranberries. The human body wears out over time no matter how well we protect ourselves. 'Three score and ten' is about right for our life span. Although modern medicine can certainly expand those years. We might do a small damage to our bodies in eating processed foods but we do significant damage when we smoke tobacco or drink alcohol heavily. Even a moron understands smoking damages our lungs. Even a moron knows heavy drinking damages our liver and brain cells. And of course, we can 'eat' ourselves to an early grave due to obesity. Then there are the genes you inherit which affect your lifespan. I'm not sure we can measure the damage processed foods do to us if we use moderation in consuming them. I myself have always loved lots of whole milk, lots of sugar, plenty of red meat, and I'm a healthy 84. But I never smoked and only have a little red wine occasionally. I'm not concerned with the skittles' scare.

 

Not any worse than depending on the 'safe and effective' people to manage our diets will. You think the people that refused to acknowledge that vitamin D and exercise boost the immune system are going to ban only unhealthy food?

And on that subject, what argument is there for banning skittles that doesnt apply just as well for tobacco or soft drinks or alcohol?

...or do you support banning alcohol, again?

 

I literally posted sources showing other nations have banned these ingredients so you are either saying that Americans are either too incompetent to create effective programs or you are saying they are too corrupt. Which is it?

Are you serious?

Please tell me this is just a display of hyper partisan rhetoric and you really didn’t just ask what is the difference between the ingredients in skittles and those in alcohol or tobacco…

Let’s start with the first item and see if you can discern the differences: What is the age requirement to purchase each item?

 

Our voters are too incompetent which results in our govt being too corrupt to be given that sort of power.

If you wanna age restrict skittles sales to adults only, Im on board. Its the treating of adults like children that need to be protected from their own bad decisions that I oppose. If we dont have the freedom to choose poorly, we dont have any freedom or choice at all.

 

That is a logical argument. It is not, however, a perfect analogy, because Skittles are not grown, like tobacco, or are not the natural end product of fermentation, like alcohol. But still, you have a point. The difference, is that one could make Skittles with a different red coloring, which would not substantially change it; the only difference would be an increased cost for the producer. That said, I do not know how essential and irreplaceable are any of the other 3 ingredients, that is, how much of an effect it would have on the end product, to use less harmful, alternate ingredients.

As for soft drinks, which are also unhealthy when consumed in volume, as they typically are, I suppose the difference is that for the regular sodas, the worst ingredient is the sugar which, in itself, is not "toxic." That is, the processed form is a natural part of most foods. There is no possibility of outright banning sugar. It is the amount of sugar, in such a quicky absorbable, liquid form, which makes it a harmful practice, to consume. So, a better analogy might be limiting the sugar, in soda. Of course, soda does also often contain artificial colors, flavors, and, in its "diet" form, artificial sweeteners. None of these are good to put into one's body. The differentiation between these and the Skittles ingredients must presumably be that the evidence of the deleterious effects and potential consequences of the banned substances must be more definably documented. That is, we cannot say with as much certainty, how much risk one takes of developing, say, an autoimmune disorder, from consuming the amount of artificial ingredients in soda, as can presumably be identified, the adverse consequences of consuming the ingredients that California will be banning.

It is obviously, though, not a black and white issue. That is, even for one who feels that the government should regulate nothing, only require labelling of all ingredients, the government does ban things, and the courts have affirmed the government's ability to do so, and the general population supports that power of government, in the abstract, though may differ in their opinions of the specific usages of that power. That is, there are few Americans who would not applaud the banning of lead paint, on children's toys, rather than just requiring those toys to place a sticker on the bottom, saying, "paint on toy contains lead." So, though it makes the issue far more subtle and complex than some prefer that any issue be, there is no clear line that can be stated in a sentence, which could universally and in a practical sense apply, at least to any seemingly realistic possible outcome.

In my own opinion, the ideal solution would be educating consumers. That is, it does little good to label ingredients, if even for many of those whom might care about what they eat, the names of these ingredients are meaningless. If one needs to do vast amounts of research to familiarize oneself with all these potential food additives, that will obviously discourage most, and predispose society to our current state of societal cluelessness, over what we are consuming.

Even this suggestion, however, has its flaws. First among them, is that it would be a major, and long term undertaking-- and one for which ultimate "success" would undoubtedly be limited-- to transform our current society, into one of consumers who were nearly all, well-versed in the scientific terms used on food labels which, of course, are being augmented with new compounds, all of the time (and of which, our knowledge is constantly being updated). In other words, it is not a pragmatic solution, nor a practical expectation, that most people will devote the time and effort to read all food labels, even if they could understand all of the language. But it is erroneous to take from that, the conclusion that people don't care if they are being offered largely unhealthy foods.

The other problem with the solution of merely educating consumers, is that there is zero possibility-- in a country in which the policies of one of our 2 major political parties, seem based on a disbelief that either Global Climate Change is a real phenomenon, or at least that there is anything we can do to much change it-- that any scientific conclusions that the government body in charge of doing that educating, might try to share with citizens, would not be highly contested and challenged in court, at least by industry, if not by some Republican leaders, as well. And, while I support the right of industry to court adjudication-- from a realistic standpoint, this would yield a system which was stymied, and ineffective.

 

At some point our society will not be able to compete against other nations because you want private corporations to be able to put known cancer causing agents in food products under the guise of “freedom of choice”.

I use to understand the right wing — no more.

 

All those carbs! It's just so wrong.

 

The problem with your argument, is that it does not consider the alternative. It is all well and good, to point out that government agencies are not beyond having corruption. But in lieu of any government regulation, we are necessarily left with a system, run according to the discretion of industry, which is also disposed toward being "corrupt," that is, toward making decisions that are not in the public interest but rather the interests of its own bottom line, even when that is directly oppositional to what is best for those consuming its products. In fact, the corruption, you cite of government would, in regard to this issue, be predominantly due to corporate interests, precipitating that corruption.

The idea that there is anywhere near strong as an incentive, or that there exists, in reality, a documentable phenomenon of government officials regulating things, only due to personal motives-- that is, not at the behest of industry, in order to retain their financial support, or future employment, but rather strictly for their personal ends-- as exists the provable and commonly understood motive of business to prioritize profit, is an utterly unfounded fantasy.

 

the right would ban the flavor then, like they did with vapes under Trump - cause flavors like skittles is marketed to children in their eyes (even if it's an adult product)

 

Theres many ways to compete. Im OK if we dont make the cheapest plastic toy or work for the lowest wage.

I just want freedom of choice. Skittles are ****ing awful for you. But so is booze and cigars... and I love those in moderation. The govt would ban them all in an instant to be able to spend another penny on cluster bombs or welfare. I say NO.