I also prefer 100% natural ground insects in my food over artificial dyes.

(Just teasing for funsies)

Discouraging use of artificial dye is a good idea. It interferes with people's ability to make health conscious choices. Requiring labeling would be a great start.

Except they want “natural” dyes used instead which do the same thing. but “natural” does not necessarily mean better or safer.

Food dye is used to cover up a lot of food crime.

source? i did a brief search but didn’t see anything about.

Most of us wouldn't eat food that needs to be dyed to look safe to eat, if it weren't dyed, if we had a choice.

if you look at that from a different angle, that's food dye preventing food waste. if there’s nothing actually wrong with the food other than appearance.

also:

sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-d…

There is a deeper political issue here as well that I will not get into, but just point out. The recent Supreme Court decision ending Chevron Deference may have played a role here. The question is – who interprets federal regulations? The Chevron Deference standard says that the experts working in the relevant agency would be given deference when interpreting the law. For example, the FDA could determine how to apply the Delaney Clause based upon an expert level understanding of the complexities of toxicity research. The SC ended such deference, meaning that regulations can be interpreted by the courts without deference to experts. One has to wonder if this otherwise odd decision by the FDA was a response to this.

setting the precedent to remove expert opinion of federal law and replace it with court opinion is not good.

Don't lose too much sleep over it.

This is likely going to be "Oops, all placebos!" in our future.

Wait.....only one? I've been eating several, to help break down foods inside my gizzard.

BAAAAWWWWKKKKKK

Properly implemented machine learning, sure.

These dimwits are genuinely just gonna feed everything to a second rate LLM and treat the output as the word of God.

I have to quibble with you, because you used the term "AI" instead of actually specifying what technology would make sense.

As we have seen in the last 2 years, people who speak in general terms on this topic are almost always selling us snake oil. If they had a specific model or computer program that they thought was going to be useful because it fit a specific need in a certain way, they would have said that, but they didn't.

Different types of AI, different training data, different expectations and outcomes. Generative AI is but one use case.

It's already been proven a useful tool in research, when directed and used correctly by an expert. It's a tool, to give to scientists to assist them, not replace them.

If you're goal to use AI to replace people, you've got a bad surprise coming.

If you're not equipping your people with the skills and tools of AI, your people will become obsolete in short time.

Learn AI and how to utilize it as a tool, you can train your own model on your own private data and locally interrogate the model to do unique analysis typically not possible in realtime. Learn the goods and bads of technology and let your ethics guide how you use it, but stop dismissing revolutionary technology because the earlier generative models weren't reinforced enough get fingers right.

I'll try arguing in the opposite direction for the sake of it:

An "AI", if not specifically tweaked, is just a bullshit machine approximating reality same way human-produced bullshit does.

A human is a bullshit machine with an agenda.

Depending on the cost of decisions made, an "AI", if it's trained on properly vetted data and not tweaked for an agenda, may be better than a human.

If that cost is high enough, and so is the conflict of interest, a dice set might be better than a human.

There are positions where any decision except a few is acceptable, yet malicious humans regularly pick one of those few.