Hacker News Reader

Comment by egypturnash | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> most of the rest of the world has regulated the heck out of these dyes

You may want to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number#E100%E2%80%93E199_(co...

Almost all dyes approved in the US are also approved in the EU. There are even a number of dyes approved in the EU but not in the US.

> often with warning labels required on packaging about the way this stuff makes kids ADHD

This does not happen.

To back that up:

> The most common synthetic food dyes in the U.S. — including Blue 1, Blue 2, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 — are all approved for use in Europe. They use different names for them there, which may account for some of the confusion.

https://archive.ph/2025.06.18-205957/https://www.thecut.com/...

Way too many people are getting their information on this topic from things like Tiktok and Instagram. Every video on there just proclaims how the EU has banned food dyes and additives that we use, therefore they're unsafe and we should ban them as well.

Never mentioned is that the US has also banned food dyes and additives that are still in use in the EU.

The US bans things when it threatens corporations, the EU bans things when it threatens Gaia.

This and the Pharma advertising changes could be great.

I think it's important to judges individual policy, not just judge an individual.

Getting rid of pharma ads is going to be a first amendment issue, and should be struck down, as it likely will. Creating an environment where the goverment can single out who the first amendment does and doesn't apply to is far far worse than pharma advertising.

The first amendment doesn't apply as broadly to commercial speech as it does normal speech. There's already restrictions placed on it and a framework for deciding if further restrictions would be acceptable.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/central-hudson-test/

> The Central Hudson test has a threshold prong – does the speech concern lawful activity and is it non-misleading. If it meets these requirements, then there are three other prongs:

> The government must have a substantial interest.

> The regulation must directly and materially advance the government’s substantial interest.

> The regulation must be narrowly tailored.

It would seem like restricting medical ads would be within the realms of constitutionally acceptable government power.

The supreme Court already applies different rules for commercial speech than political speech.

See https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/central-hudson-test/

If the Pharma industry as it exists, today could exist without federal government regulation, then I think you might have a point.

The government is so intertwined in the Pharma industry, that no I don’t really see a 1A problem here.

Sparing misused, and completely incorrect fire in a theater, tropes, there is a good point we made that freedom of speech does not extend to unnecessarily dangerous things. Remind me which company has received the largest criminal fine in history (Pfizer).

I just don’t think you’re gonna have a lot of sympathy for oh poor Pharma companies and their lack of free speech.

> I just don’t think you’re gonna have a lot of sympathy for oh poor Pharma companies and their lack of free speech

This is perhaps the worst argument possible for restricting the rights of a certain group.

Because they are government subsidized to the point of being an arm and they’re naughty?

Ok, but it works for me.

Corporations are not people. They don't have rights.

Why? Cigarette ads are banned from tv

Do you think the original intention of the first amendment was to protect advertising on TV?

No. I don't think the fractal what ifs concerned them.

Do you think the original intention of the first amendment was to have a scattered subjective enforcement based on prevailing popular winds at any given time?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com