Tory functionary blaming European overreach and vowing to repeal that particular law now that the UK is “free to make its own decisions” in 3…2…1…
4 Likes
I think “Illegal Sprinkles” would work well too
15 Likes
Wasn’t it Britain who pushed for the restriction in the first place? Or was that for other food colourings?
Not that it will stop the Brexiters, I admit. Those guys would punch themselves in the face and claim that the EU broke their nose.
11 Likes
And their cover band: Misdemeanor Smatterings.
6 Likes
No, no, no… Britain will not only legalize those particular sprinkles any day now, but also sign a trade with the US securing exclusive import rights. Boosting the British economy to unprecedented levels, because reasons.
7 Likes
Maybe a compromise can be reached if he clearly labels the sprinkles as smuggled, then lets the market decide.
At first the thought of his mules swallowing condoms full of sprinkles may be rather off-putting. But there’s a business opportunity there if he markets his baked goods as containing the kopi luwak of sprinkles.
7 Likes
If we must fight a War, then let it be a War over “sprinkles”.
4 Likes
Not being able to go to Disneyland can be very traumatic for a little girl of… let’s see…
6 Likes
I am an American who was about to post an identical comment. I will add that both sprinkles and hundred-and-thousands are just colored SUGAR!
1 Like
Other stories have the baker purchasing the sprinkles from a UK wholesaler. And people do have some bad reactions to that particular red dye, not just the claims of affecting kids.
1 Like
We have always been at war with sprinkles.
10 Likes
Sad, but true.
3 Likes
IIRC the link between sugar and hyperactivity is rooted in a 70’s diet book that originally pegged food coloring and other additives as the source of hyperactivity. That got extended to sugar not long after. It’s less that “other studies have show”, than no quality study has ever shown a link between sugar and hyper activity. Reviews since the 90’s have actually failed to find any actual baseline of data. You’ve got studies that show no connection, and messy studies that postdate the claim that might maybe show something.
The EU kinda has a better safe than sorry approach on food additives. Much like California with it’s Prop 65 warnings. It really only takes one or two studies, often in vitro tests, showing something has a negative effect for the EU to restrict or ban it. On the other end of it they’re not exactly quick with lifting those restrictions when there turns out there’s no actual risk.
Thing is I don’t know that hyperactivity is why this is restricted in the EU. That’s Red no.3. It’s use is restricted in the US too, due to cancer concerns. As far as I’m aware that’s why it’s restricted in the EU (and thus UK) as well. From what I recall the cancer risks here are on the more valid side, but might be more about risks in those who produce and use the dye than those who consume it in small doses.
If I had to guess. If hyperactivity really is a justification for restricting it in the EU, then it was probably a reaction to some earlier, 70’s and 80’s claims. And it just stayed restricted because of the cancer problem.
The problem with that is anything is dangerous or deadly in the proper dose. Over consuming water can kill you, by causing your brain to swell.
Added to that. It can be next to impossible to really establish effects with some of this stuff, none the less real world harm. Like when you’re looking at potential cancer risks at low levels, just because something shows a carcinogenic mechanism in a lab does not mean it has actually caused an actual cancer in the real world.
By studying things in a particular way almost anything can be made to seem harmful. This is how you end up with the “everything causes cancer, everything prevents cancer” throughline. Negligible effects found by hosing a Petri dish down aren’t really a practical indication of real world risk or harms.
There is a certain practicality issue with establishing actual effects here without exposure to actual people over actual time. Many things that have turned out to be actually harmful came through basic safety testing just fine.
The EU explicitly calls for a “precautionary principle” in it’s food safety regulation.
This basically allows for, or prompts, restriction where there is an indication of potential risk. But insufficient data to either prove the risk, or make a clear determination.
That’s also how California’s prop 65 warnings work.
Generally the US regulatory regime doesn’t work that way. We tend to hold off till there’s enough info to draw a conclusion, at the outside not restricting things until harm is proven. But like you said, safety testing is still required to introduce something in the first place.
The difference is in how we deal with that stuff that pops up later.
They may have to leverage the UK’s vast, desirable Jam reserves to make that happen.
5 Likes
“British sprinkles just aren’t the same, they’re totally shit and I hate them.”
I’ve only had American sprinkles, but if they’re the good ones, sprinkles in general are shit. No real baked goods should have them - they exist solely to hide the poor quality of the underlying item. I feel no sympathy for this bakery’s enforced loss of them, and if they’re so dependent on these, it’s probably best they close down permanently.
5 Likes
There have actually been experiments (double blind, randomized controlled trials) that show sugar doesn’t result in increased hyperactivity in children. It’s either a self-fulfilling prophecy/confirmation bias (caregivers believe children will become more hyper after consuming sugar, become more controlling or escalate situations, and thus increase their child’s hyperactivity) or a spurious correlation (it is the environment in which kids are provided sugar that makes them hyperactive, not the sugar itself).
Whether it was the dyes or the sugar that was blamed first, I don’t know.
3 Likes
1 Like
If I had to put money on it, I would say no link. But there is a paucity of quality studies investigating it, at least according to the FDA review I linked to so was just trying to parrot the scientists that have looked at it closer than me.
As for the sugar myth - was trying to make that same point, and that food dyes may well be caught up in the same myth. Sorry if it didn’t come across.
My partner is English and they are steadfastly opposed to synthetic food dyes. Me? Gimme that sprinkle laden donut.
1 Like
He was clearly being sarcastic there
Yes, especially since people started to actually look at the subject.
But the huge lack of any solid indication on the other end is equally telling.
The major point here is the hyperactivity claims weren’t necessarily based on findings in research. Or at least not on a broad, supported consensus. And those findings weren’t reversed by more recent studies. There was never quality data behind the claim.
1 Like
