RFK Jr. announces intent to phase out synthetic food dyes

[ThatRobGuy]

If it makes economic sense, why arent manufacturers already doing it?

Because the US FDA hasn't made them change.

My understanding is that the US FDA has a different regulatory philosophy than their Euro counterparts.

US FDA: "It has to be clearly definitively proven that a substance/additive is harmful to humans before we'll ban it"
EURO: "It has to be clearly definitively proven to be safe before we'll allow it"

So, for instance, a limited scale rat study wouldn't likely be enough to get a substance banned in the US, but it would in Europe.


Up until now, the domestic market alone was lucrative enough that they didn't have to worry about it. And in the case of some mega companies like Nestle, they were already running parallel product lines in the US and Europe.


I posed the question to AI just out of curiosity.

 

[durangodawood]

Because the US FDA hasn't made them change.

My understanding is that the US FDA has a different regulatory philosophy than their Euro counterparts.

US FDA: "It has to be clearly definitively proven that a substance/additive is harmful to humans before we'll ban it"
EURO: "It has to be clearly definitively proven to be safe before we'll allow it"

So, for instance, a limited scale rat study wouldn't likely be enough to get a substance banned in the US, but it would in Europe.


Up until now, the domestic market alone was lucrative enough that they didn't have to worry about it. And in the case of some mega companies like Nestle, they were already running parallel product lines in the US and Europe.


I posed the question to AI just out of curiosity.

View attachment 364046

Why are regs needed to provoke change if, like you said, it already makes economic sense?

Or, if companies arent interested in exporting or dont care about the tiny cutting edge of consumer demand, then perhaps for them it doesnt make economic sense, and they have to be prodded by regulation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why are regs needed to provoke change if, like you said, it already makes economic sense?

Or, if companies arent interested in exporting or dont care about the tiny cutting edge of consumer demand, then perhaps for them it doesnt make economic sense, and they have to be prodded by regulation.

I think it makes sense for the food companies (and the overall export economy)

It's likely the companies that make the dyes that are the main pushback.

They themselves will likely go the way of asbestos and DDT and obviously they're trying to avoid that.

Think of it like the dynamic when it comes to energy policy.

Do certain forms of energy have the potential to be more lucrative than coal? Absolutely.

Are there opportunities that could be a net positive to the economy at a macro level? Yes.

Is the coal industry going to be the benefactor in any of that? Nope...and that's why they'll fight to remain relevant.




In this case:
Companies like IFF, DuPont, and Dow Inc. are major players in the production of food dyes and additives. Those aren't exactly small fish, and they have considerable lobbying power.

They'll certainly lose money if these regulations go through. However, a lot more food product producers have more to gain by being able to export their products abroad.


The other aspect is actually an area where a sliver of deregulation can help.

For example, if there's a regulatory framework in place that gives these smaller food producing companies a bunch of red tape and hurdles to use a beet or carrot derived food coloring agent vs. "FDA Approved Red Dye #3"



So perhaps to better illustrate what I'm talking about.

Pretend you and I both have companies worth $20 million
"Evil Guy" has a company worth $50 million and their main business is selling us the stuff we use to make our products. And they've basically paid for favorable regulatory measures that force us into use their stuff, and as a result we're limited to a domestic market.

You and I would stand to gain a lot by being able to use an alternative product that maybe costs us a little more up front, but that opens us up to be able to export to 20 new international markets that we weren't able to do before due to "Evil Guy's" stuff not being allowed over there.


Naturally Evil guy will pushback, he likes the current arrangement and stands to lose revenue. However, you and I collectively stand to gain more in new trade than what Evil guy will lose.

Hopefully I didn't explain that too clumsily.