FDA Bans BVO, an Additive Found In Some Fruity Sodas (axios.com) 169
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Axios: The Food and Drug Administration will no longer allow the use of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in food products and sodas due to concerns it poses a threat to people's health, the FDA announced Tuesday. The ban follows similar action in California against the food additive that's modified with bromine, which has been used in small quantities as a stabilizer in some citrus-flavored drinks and which is also found in fire retardants.
Jim Jones, the deputy commissioner for the FDA's Human Foods Program, said in a statement that "removal of the only authorized use of BVO from the food supply was based on a thorough review of current science and research findings that raised safety concerns." The FDA "concluded that the intended use of BVO in food is no longer considered safe after the results of studies conducted in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found the potential for adverse health effects in humans," per an agency statement. A 2022 FDA study found that oral exposure to the additive "is associated with increased tissue levels of bromine and that at high levels of exposure the thyroid is a target organ of potential negative health effects in rodents." The ban takes effect on August 2. Companies will have one year from then to "reformulate, relabel, and deplete the inventory of BVO-containing products before the FDA begins enforcing the final rule," according to the agency.
Jim Jones, the deputy commissioner for the FDA's Human Foods Program, said in a statement that "removal of the only authorized use of BVO from the food supply was based on a thorough review of current science and research findings that raised safety concerns." The FDA "concluded that the intended use of BVO in food is no longer considered safe after the results of studies conducted in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found the potential for adverse health effects in humans," per an agency statement. A 2022 FDA study found that oral exposure to the additive "is associated with increased tissue levels of bromine and that at high levels of exposure the thyroid is a target organ of potential negative health effects in rodents." The ban takes effect on August 2. Companies will have one year from then to "reformulate, relabel, and deplete the inventory of BVO-containing products before the FDA begins enforcing the final rule," according to the agency.
Not many drinks use it anymore (Score:5, Informative)
SunDrop still has it, as do a few store brand sodas. Gatorade, Power Ade, and Mountain Dew were once infamous for BVO, but those drinks have all been reformulated to remove the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because it has been banned in the EU for 8 years now. Alternatives had to be researched.
Re: (Score:2)
SunDrop still has it, as do a few store brand sodas. Gatorade, Power Ade, and Mountain Dew were once infamous for BVO, but those drinks have all been reformulated to remove the stuff.
Yep. The click bait headlines all try to make it sound like "commonly used in soda!" but it's pretty uncommon, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
All orange drinks (and sodas) I'm aware of use it.
Now they just need to get rid of the glycerol ester of wood rosin.
So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until an unacceptable number of stiffs pile up or enough people have been grievously injured. Actuaries for companies can put a price on your grandmother and can figure out the perfect price point at which the company starts to lose money. One just needs to keep accurate figures.
So what is a person to do? Easy, keep accurate statistics on your family and neighbors. If they start dying in numbers that surprise you, dig into what they ate and resolve not to eat it.
Bromine substitutes for Iodine creating hypothyroi (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
BVO contains Bromine. Bromine is in the same column as iodine in the periodic table. Bromine is roughly the similar size as iodine as well. Bromine will substitute for Iodine in a human body and then cause havoc in the endocrine system. In other words, instead of 3 iodines in a T3 thyroid hormone, there may be 2 iodines and a bromine. This means that the T3 is defective and will not work. As a Medical Doctor, it is very common for me to see hypothyroid patients that are poisoned with Bromine. If you are able to flush the bromine out of the body, their endocrine hypothyroid problem gets better.
Yay, more endocrine disruptors! 8^) I went to Wikipedia, and was surprised about "bromism" and how it used to be pretty common, especially since it was once in medicine like Potassium and Lithium bromide. How do people contract it today? From what I gather, the last legal use was in store brand soft drinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Also Bromine is used in some baked goods as a leavening agent. Bromine is also used in some asthma inhalers. Some people brominate their pools instead of chlorinating their pools. Potassium bromate is a chemical additive commonly used in the food industry to help strengthen dough and enhance the texture of baked goods. It's often added to bread, rolls and other baked goods to make them rise higher and have a more uniform texture. EWG has identified over 130 different products that contain potassium bromate. Again, as a Medical Doctor and hypothyroid, this is a major common problem.
Yeah, I did some research, and that crap is all over the place. There are better options for most things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. This stuff seems to be banned in most of the civilized world. Europe started around 1970. No surprise the US is late, the country of greed and "freedom" has one of the worst food industries on the planet.
Relax a bit here. The last remaining use of BVO is in some small store brands. Virtually all citrus drinks are emulsified with Glycol ester of wood rosin, or locust bean gum now and have been for a good while.
Canada doesn't ban it at all.
Germany uses potassium bromide as an approved anti-epileptic drug especially for children and adolescents. Bromism is a side effect.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_bromide
If you think the 8ppm level in off brand drinks is a crime, imagine the whopping dose som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the risk/reward ratio is quite different when you are suffering from epilepsy vs drinking a soda pop.
Is that a refutation? My point in all of this is people claiming that 8 parts per million of brominated vegetable oil in only a few soft drinks now banned is an examppl.,,e of the horrid state of 'Murrica, while enlightened European countries like Germany have an approved treatment that gives children a whopping dose of 5 grams a day while there are better treatments.
All OTC bromine containing medicines were banned in the USA in 1975. So if people want to get a rageboner about the 8ppm level in a few of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the 8ppm level in off brand drinks is a crime, imagine the whopping dose some poor german kid gets for "treating" their epilepsy.
Medical uses means there is a risk/benefit analysis. Bromine is only used in epilepsy resistant to other treatments, where the risks associated to taking Bromine are irrelevant as compared to the risks dying from epilepsy.
Arsenic trioxide is approved treatment for resistant leukemia, Mercurophylline is an approved diuretics. Copper (I) sulphate is an emetic sometimes used as antidote (for poisoning).
That Arsenic, Mercury and Copper have medical applications (it's Arsenic or dying from leukemia; Copper or d
Re: (Score:2)
Medical uses means there is a risk/benefit analysis. Bromine is only used in epilepsy resistant to other treatments, where the risks associated to taking Bromine are irrelevant as compared to the risks dying from epilepsy.
Of course. All medicines have side effects. Bromism is one. But given that there are a multitude of treatments for Epilepsy - Paraldehyde, lorazepam, diazepam, midazolam, Clobazam, Clonazepam, Clorazepate, Midazolam, Carbamazepine, Oxcarbazepine, Eslicarbazepine acetate, valproates, Vigabatrin, Topiramate, Gabapentinoids, Hydantoins, Oxazolidinediones, and I gave up after a while. Didn't even mention Phenobarbital, because I''d think long and hard about giving that treatment. I'm curious why only a fe
Great, just great (Score:3)
"The ban follows similar action in California against the food additive that's modified with bromine, which has been used in small quantities as a stabilizer in some citrus-flavored drinks and which is also found in fire retardants."
Don't any of these people think about the consequences of their actions? They've now pretty much guaranteed that these poor people are gonna start randomly bursting into flame. You may think "so what" - but what if one of them is standing right next to you?
(yes, yes, I've heard about SHC [wikipedia.org])
acidic food, citrus juice likely to leach plastic (Score:2)
Plastic bottles for orange juice are thicker because the acid in orange juice is more likely to weaken the bottle.
Is this just that the acid dissolves the plastic faster than water does? And, if so, how much, what chemicals and what are the effects of dissolved/leached plastic chemicals on the human body?
Banned in the EU since 1970 or so (Score:2)
Guess the US wants to reduce the amount its population gets poisoned as well. Good.
Re: (Score:2)
As an outsider it seems to me that big corp money talks louder in the US than in the europe, though you'd think even the sociopaths in charge of these corps would refrain from wanting to poison their own food and drink but I guess mammons call overrides almost everything.
Re: (Score:2)
These greedy killers probably drink water imported from France...
Re: (Score:2)
Guess the US wants to reduce the amount its population gets poisoned as well. Good.
When they’ve ignored it that long, best to assume that public health isn’t anywhere near the reason it’s finally being banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, possibly. Or not.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are stupid and are now demonstrating that aggressively? Or what is your intention with this inane posting?
That will get knocked down (Score:2)
There’s going to be a LOT of things getting unbanned/unregulated/unrestricted in the next few years. It’ll be a libertarian conservatives dream, right up to the point where everyone starts finding pieces of mouse dung in their burgers that are large enough to taste and identify
Re: (Score:2)
But companies will do the right thing, won't they?
Won't they?
I haven't actually read the book but the summary scarily parallels today. Especially now that children are working in meat packing https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com] and automove plants https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Can't wait for the return of company towns and company stores.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the bright side - it'll be exciting to see rivers catching on fire again!
Historically Relevant Name (Score:2)
That's an interesting name for the person controlling the additives to fruit-flavored beverages.
Perhaps he's making up for the previous one.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting name for the person controlling the additives to fruit-flavored beverages.
The other guy wasn't keen on congressional oversight at all.
Lets put fire retardant in everyone's fruit sodas! (Score:2)
Water fluoridation (Score:2)
And now, because of the supreme court, we can finally get rid of water fluoridation, which saps our precious bodily fluids.
And they can stop all this nonsense about Ivermectin not being an effective treatment for the 5G COVID hoax. Freedom!
Re: (Score:2)
Fluoride defenders are now down to the level of trying to argue that there is a lack of evidence that fluoridation has less than 2x safety margin ...
Yes, it's mainly chuddies who are anti-fluoride, sometimes kneejerking to "anything but agreeing with chuddies" gets really weird though. Just to disagree with chuddies, things like fluoride and lab leak become matter of scientific religion far more than science.
Most of the scientists defending fluoride know better than to think that the evidence is clear, they
Re: (Score:2)
I say arguments like yours are not made by malintent, but because of "anything but agree with chuddies" kneejerking. I say the scientists consider the known damage due to caries is worse than the possible damage to bones and brain development, but think lying about that is justified for the greater good.
When your science is literally bringing a supposed lack of evidence of a developmental poison having a worse than 2x safety factor as their best argument to add it to drinking water, I can understand default
It was a quote from a very old movie . . . (Score:2)
or
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can just hear Ripper's voice and see him with his arm around Madrake as he recounts his conspiracy theory (Still from scene: https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com]).
Unfortunately, this insane nonsense passes for serious political discourse these days & few see the humour in such parodies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying the attacks against the NTP report for not agreeing on the strength of evidence under 1.5 mg/L is hard to defend ... where is your argument other than your lack of defence? You just want your fellow anti-chuddies to clap for trying to ridicule someone who dares to go against the scientific dogma.
As I said, fluoride and lab leak theory are a bit special in this regard. It doesn't bring out the best in science or their defenders, this ain't climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When he came to work at the National Toxicology Program of the NIH. All he wanted to be was a good little federal employed scientist celebrated and defended by media and liberals, instead he was reviled as a chuddy nazi fake news spreader.
The scientific consensus is that any study which shows negative effect under 1.5 mg/L is unsound and that a 2x safety factor is absolutely sufficient here and requires no justification. Say Amen and shut up.
Good, but fire retardants? (Score:3)
As long as the science backs it up, that's good, but why - "which is also found in fire retardants." You are aware, a lot of fire retardants contain water, does that make it toxic? I'm not sure that's how things work.
Enjoy It While It Lasts (Score:2)
You don't know what you got 'til it's gone. The FDA gets to ban something - that'll drift away. Pretty soon they won't be able to ban lethal doses of cyanide in Flintstones vitamins.
Quite tricky, this simple idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are indeed flaws in the system, but this isn't one of them. Our problem is to find a balance between profitability and wholesomeness. With over eight billion mouths to feed on the planet, we can't all get back to "only organic" foods; we'd better have a whole bunch of guys who're way smarter than me paying attention to the whole process to keep us safe. If they don't think this plastic is safe for use as indicated, I believe they know more than I do about the subject. How 'bout we let 'em do their jobs, eh?
Jim Jones? (Score:2)
....so Jim Jones has strong opinions about the ingredients in a fruit-flavored drink?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cool, now do abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
I favor post-natal abortion, especially for criminals.
Re:Typical Government Overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
Need compartivie list of banned ingredients (Score:2)
Does anyone have a reference listing the different foods, additives, ingredients, pesticides, chemicals, etc. which are banned in different countries?
An easy, "Why is selling canned which has ingredient which is banned in Australia, UK, ...?"
Re: (Score:2)
For the EU, Wikipedia has the complete list of food additives to every have been ever allowed for use in the EU. Any such additive that is not listed as "Approved" means it once was approved and later banned. As example BVO is E443 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Hear, hear! (Score:3)
And I don't care of somebody's male children start growing boobs because of a perfectly profit-improving additive that also happens to have binding sites not too different from estrogen. Only, wait . . . isn't this explicitly what we want our government to do? Isn't this exactly what we want ou
Re: Hear, hear! (Score:2)
Saturn V used kerosene (first stage) or liquid hydrogen (second and third stage) as fuel and liquid oxygen as oxidizer
Re: Hear, hear! (Score:2)
But NASA engineers commuted to work in cars running on leaded gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical Government Overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act [congress.gov] gives the Dept of Health and Human Services the power to require food producers to provide additional information on their labels. That includes a list of all of the ingredients in the product.
Obviously (now that the supreme court has ruled), since the specific regulation comes from a government agency instead of being a specific law passed by congress, it can be challenged in court. Because, just as obviously, that's where the real experts in food safety are.
Re:Typical Government Overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously (now that the supreme court has ruled), since the specific regulation comes from a government agency instead of being a specific law passed by congress, it can be challenged in court. Because, just as obviously, that's where the real experts in food safety are.
Not only challenged in court, but lobbied for. Corporate interests want to be heard. Previously those pesky federal agencies supposedly only paid attention to public taxpayer interests.
And if I've learned anything over the last 8 years, it's that with enough money you can tie up the courts forever to further your delay, delay, delay strategy to avoid all accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
> Previously those pesky federal agencies supposedly only paid attention to public taxpayer interests.
Yeah, supposedly.
You've never heard of the "revolving door" phenomenon, I take it.
It's very common for the "experts" who write the regulations to have come from the industry (or other entity) allegedly being regulated, and to return to that entity after they've done their stint in government. Sometimes they even go through multiple cycles.
You should go look at the careers of (e.g.) current and former mem
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical Government Overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously (now that the supreme court has ruled), since the specific regulation comes from a government agency instead of being a specific law passed by congress, it can be challenged in court. Because, just as obviously, that's where the real experts in food safety are.
Slip the judge a gratuity. It's all good now. https://www.vox.com/scotus/357... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The Chevron ruling went into effect roughly 40 years ago. The various federal agencies it applied to almost all existed prior to that point and Congress had no problems passing regulatory laws before
Re: (Score:2)
> Because, just as obviously, that's where the real experts in food safety are.
The ruling says that laws have to be passed by Congress, not made up on the spot by bureaucrats.
Congress can hire (or just subpoena) any experts it wants before it passes the law.
Personally, I don't see requiring Congress to do its job as a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws are passed by congress, those laws, being unable to catch every single possible variation of a thing, are loose enough to allow a small amount of interpretation as times change which is not only allowed but how the government is designed to work.
Top level Political Appointees, approved by CONGRESS, nominated by the President, are appointed to fill those top level positions (you know, things like the head of the Co
Re: (Score:2)
Are there people who break the law? Of course, is it commonplace to do so? Nope, that is why when it happens it is newsworthy and put on the frontpage of news papers and such.
If you include the military, there is something like 2.7 million federal employees. if one tenth of one percent broke the law that woul
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine being an epidemiologist with no degree. How many studies do you figure you can run on your body in a year or several so that you will know what to put in and what not.
You: doctor, my eyes are starting to bulge out, what's wrong.
Doctor: Thyroid. Now are you eating any bromine.
You: Nope.
Doctor: are you eating any brominated vegetable oil?
You: Nope.
Doctor: are you drinking any fruity soft drinks.
You: Well, yeah, doesn't everybody?
Doctor: They use BMO.
You: But I read the labels, they just say vegetable
Your doctor (Score:2)
sounds suspiciously like the sysadmin where I work.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you can, but how about your grandmother? Can she read and understand the list of ingredients?
Re: (Score:2)
I can read ingredients thank you very much and decide for myself what to put into my body.
Whether it's bromine or cocaine, government can fuck off
Is this you [imgur.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has canceled the FDA's enforcement powers. Congress now has to pass legislation on if this ingredient is safe.
Nope. Congress merely has to clearly define the scope of the authority being delegated to the FDA and its experts. The FDA is part of the Executive branch, the ability to make any sort of law, regulations in this case, must be delegated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it’s a double edged sword.
When Trump is president again, every time his posse tries to vomit out a presidential decree putting some group of children into wire cages, it’ll instantly get
Re: Not so fast! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think youre drastically overestimating the importance of expert opinion in this new era. Without chevron, the agencies will be able to use expert opinion, but only inside the bounds of what congress has explicitly put into the words of the law.
Nonsense, Congress does not have to go anywhere near the technical details. Just define the scope of the delegated authority to regulate. For example stating the the FDA can determine the safety of ingredients in food and create corresponding regulations to limit ingredients to safe levels. What those levels are is entirely left to the experts.
Outside that, the recent Supreme Court case is extremely clear- the agencies have ZERO authority outside that line, expert opinion be damned.
Because the executive branch has zero authority create law/regulations, only Congress can do that, so Congress has to delegate authority to the executive branch agenc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not so fast! (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting rid of the Chevron makes it much harder and time-consuming for agencies to issue regulation,
and to an extent, the power shifts from agencies to courts.
The courts, not the agencies, decide what a law means.
In other words, legislating from the bench. Remind me, isn't that the very thing Republicans whine about?
Re: (Score:3)
Not so: Congress decides the text of the law, and the courts decide the interpretation of the text.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And why should courts be responsible for the interpretation of scientific questions?
Re: (Score:2)
As an addendum, what MagaDolt judge is going to defer to scientists? They'd get their magic decoder ring taken away and set upon by the former alleged president's brown shirts. Sieg Heil!
Re: (Score:2)
Congress makes laws and agencies draft the rules that implement vague laws that they interpret using the "Chevron deference" that is now out of date.
And now Congress will make laws with clear delegation of authority and agencies will draft the rules that implement clear laws. For example this food additive could be covered with something like stating that the FDA can determine the safety of ingredients in food and drink and create corresponding regulations to limit ingredients to safe levels, or completely ban their use.
Also, Congress is free to have the agency and/or experts tell them what authority they need, and put that directly in the legislatio
Re: (Score:2)
They don't, they weigh the scientific evidence presented and explained to them by experts.
LOLs Sure they do. Even the non corrupt ones can't do that, when they have no capability of understanding the science or the experts.
Scientists explain science in layman's terms quite often. For example: "The LHC is the world’s most powerful particle accelerator: a giant machine that physicists use to smash tiny subatomic particles together at extremely high speeds to see what happens. The particle collisions recreate, for a fraction of a second, the conditions that existed moments after the Big Bang, when the Universe was born. By studying the debris of these collisions, physicists try to settle mysteries such as what matter is m
Re: (Score:2)
What people are worried about is that the interpretation of law has moved from agencies to courts, where judges might care for their own political opinions or theology more than science, of which they know little.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress writes laws, vague laws, and often find it hard to that due to gridlock.
That is the problem. Delegation cannot be a blank check that allows the bureaucrats to decide what authority they have themselves. There is nothing magic about clear delegation. For example stating that the FDA can determine the safety of ingredients in food and create corresponding regulations to limit ingredients to safe levels.
What people are worried about is that the interpretation of law has moved from agencies to courts,
That is the constitutional role of the courts, not bureaucrats. All that will happen now is that the subject matter experts will present their scientific evidence to the courts. De
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because they are a health concern and ordinary people cannot even begin to judge how safe they are? Incidentally, this crap has been banned in parts of Europe since 1970 or so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You proved my point. Why is congress involved when it should be the FDA?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, sorry. Missed that part. I do agree that this should be done by the FDA. Congress is not suitable to make expert decisions, and not only because of incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not so fast! (Score:5, Informative)
Congress delegated authority to the various agencies and empowered them for two reasons:
1) The employees at the agencies have more expertise in the area they regulate than Congress will ever have. It's insane to expect 535 people to all be experts in food safety, agriculture, medicine, transportation, energy production, education, etc..
2) It's insane to expect congress, who can't pass more than a handful of bills in a year, to suddenly have the bandwidth to address all the issues that the thousands upon thousands of people in the hundreds of federal agencies address every year.
What's even more insane is that the Supreme Court decided to allow any judge in any jurisdiction to simply overrule any regulation by any agency.
Remember this judge from earlier this year [go.com] She was ignoring the murder trial she was adjudicating in favor of sending hundreds of text messages. The Supreme Court wants you to believe that she's more of an expert on food safety than the FDA.
What you learned in 8th grade was a vague description of how the US government works. The reality is that it's a hell of a lot bigger and more complex than you could understand at that age, so they dumbed it way down for you. Unfortunately, you seem to have never learned anything past the 8th grade, so you keep bleating this nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
The employees at the agencies have more expertise in the area they regulate than Congress will ever have.
Yah but do they have more "expertise" than lobbyists?
It's insane to expect congress, who can't pass more than a handful of bills in a year, to suddenly have the bandwidth to address all the issues that the thousands upon thousands of people in the hundreds of federal agencies address every year.
I mean do you really want them to address something that gets in the way of profits? Slowing down the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
You could see federal agencies as a fourth branch of government. Not coequal, since they can be created and dissolved unilaterally by the executive. (And apparently now the judicial branch as well.)
It's worth carefully considering the place of these agencies within the structure of government. They weren't provisioned for when the constitution was written, so there's a lot of legal space for power grabs to occur. The court ruling that Congress can't delegate any of its powers to a regulatory agency is a ra
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not quite what they decided.
What they said was "if the existing law is ambiguous" then the judge has to decide what it means. That *is* a rather crazy decision, but it's not quite as crazy as you were implying.
Additionally, it *is* a bad idea to have the enforcement arm (i.e. the executive) decide whether what they want to do is something they're allowed to do. But I'm not at all sure that the judicial system is a reasonable way of improving this. Perhaps a a better answer would be for the le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not so fast! (Score:2)
Don't tell anyone but I'm selling DHMO on the dark web. Has surprisingly small amounts of Arsenic, Lead and Mercury!
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Congress merely has to clearly define the scope of the authority being delegated to the FDA and its experts. The FDA is part of the Executive branch, the ability to make any sort of law, regulations in this case, must be delegated.
Maybe I'm a bit confused here and you could help me understand something. Why is big government now legislating fruity soda ingredients?
The 'F' in "FDA" standards for "food". Somehow, fruity soda is categorized into the food category. :-)
Re:Not so fast! (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Congress merely has to clearly define the scope of the authority being delegated to the FDA and its experts. The FDA is part of the Executive branch, the ability to make any sort of law, regulations in this case, must be delegated.
Maybe I'm a bit confused here and you could help me understand something. Why is big government now legislating fruity soda ingredients?
Remember when Big Tobacco claimed that their products were actually good for you, back when cigarettes were being literally marketed and sold by the family doctor?
Remember how millions of people actually trusted and believed the marketing, mainly because it was pushed by licensed doctors?
Yeah, that’s pretty much why. Now think about how many food commercials you’ll blindly believe today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The president can just order them to do it anyway, and pardon them if they get in trouble.
HE'S IMMMUNE BABY.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is incapable of removing a president. To do so would be to consider members of congress impartial rather than an active member of a cult. To remove a president in the modern climate one party would need to be a minority party rather than the split currently in place.
Honestly Trump could have walked down in the street and curb-stomped a baby and no more than one or two republicans would have voted for his removal at an impeachment, because, *and this is the important part*, neither party gives a shi
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has canceled the FDA's enforcement powers. Congress now has to pass legislation on if this ingredient is safe.
Of course this ingredient is safe. I have a law degree and my lobbyist has told me it is safe which means I know more about this than anyone.
Sincerely
Senators.
Re:Brawndo (Score:2)
"The solution came during the budget crisis of 2330, when the Brawndo corporation simply bought the FDA. And the FCC"
I'm tired...
Re:OK..But (Score:5, Interesting)
Sugar is something an ordinary person can still understand to a degree and why it is bad. Sure, this is only for the rational fact-checkers, but they still are around 20% of the population. And the rest can still copy what others say. In contrast, BVO is an experts-only topic and hence regulation is needed.
Or in other words, people should have the freedom to ruin their health as long as they have a reasonable change of understanding what they are doing. Suggar, fat, salt, even marijuana and cocaine essentially are still somewhat understandable to an average person in their effects and hence everybody should decide for themselves. Buit BVO and a lot of other things are not within what an ordinary person can understand and hence regulation is needed.