There’s no Skittles ban. But it’s not a bad idea to stock up on Peeps.

California outlawed additives found in roughly 12,000 candies, cereals, and sodas [View on web]( [A bowl full of assorted colorful Skittles candies]( Don't worry, your beloved Skittles aren't going anywhere. | butch Dillinger / FOAP via Getty Images The internet’s town criers have been ringing their gloomy bells on the empty streets of the website formerly known as [Twitter](. The message of the day is simple: The government has come at long last to take Skittles off the aisles, right alongside Peeps and [good old-fashioned bacon](. The issue here, though, is that the harbingers of grocery store candy doom got it wrong. Skittles live, dang it, stretching from supermarkets from the West Coast to the East like purple mountains majesty. The confusion lies in California State Assembly Bill 418, just [signed]( by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 7. The bill has California join the European Union as the first state to ban four food additives. Red dye 3, propylparaben, brominated vegetable oil, and potassium bromate have been [linked]( to cancer by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Consumer Reports, and 21 other groups. Now, producers have until 2027 to remove the materials from products ranging from tortillas, trail mixes, and even those colorful microwave-until-they-blow-up Peeps. Proponents of the bill say the four materials are nonessential in nearly 12,000 recipes for popular candies, cereals, and sodas. Opponents, namely the not-so-Willy Wonka-esque National Confectioners Association, maintain this decision undermines consumer confidence. But this doesn’t mean Skittles are dead. Although an original draft of the bill included [titanium dioxide]( as a fifth harmful food additive, which would’ve roped the rainbow medley into the mix, after a tremendous public [outcry](, lawmakers decided to kick titanium dioxide to the curb. Plus, whereas the neurotoxic correlations or endocrine and reproductive damage found in the four soon-to-be outlawed chemicals was considered significant to ban more urgently, not so for titanium dioxide. Michigan State University’s Center for Research on Ingredient Safety [found]( that in small doses the property is safe to ingest, apply in sunscreen, you name it. Still, Consumer Reports’ director of food policy Brian Ronholm told outlet [Cal Matters]( the legislation, even without the inclusion of titanium dioxide, is “groundbreaking” and passed with “strong bipartisan support.” Indeed, legislating food materials in the United States has always been harried and, frankly, unethical. This goes back decades, back to when the country struck deals with private corporations to stimulate market growth. Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays, a public relations consultant who came to be known as the “[Father of Public Relations](,” bartered on behalf of the Beech-Nut Packing Company, promoting [meat and eggs]( in the 1920s through endorsements from public officials, celebrities, “experts,” and surveys; he also bartered for the United Fruit Company, promoting [bananas]( at the cost of Guatemalan lives in the 1950s. The government isn’t coming for your anything; rather, the government is often imploring you to buy more of everything. Admittedly, some experts say these specific bans don’t do much for consumer health. UC Davis food expert [James Coughlin]( told Cal Matters that outlawing these chemicals is “unnecessary and unscientific.” But outside of California and the European Union, these four chemicals are also banned in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Brazil. The Food and Drug Administration has signed off on these materials, but in April 2023, they placed the four under review for the first time in decades. Importantly to candy lovers everywhere, though, Skittles will remain available until kingdom come. The internet’s town crier can hop off their soap box for now. More Reading: - If you’re still craving sweets, [look to vegan pastry chefs and bakeshops](. Writer Charlotte Druckman has the scoop for [Eater.com’s Dessert Week](. - On the opposite side of the spectrum, the [Washington Post]( guides you through cooking with aromatic bitters, the cocktail ingredient that deserves to break away from the bar. - For something savory, the LA Times uncovers [why In-N-Out has barely changed its business model]( after 75 years. - The [SF Chronicle]( explores the question, “Can AI choose a great wine for you?” The answer is... underwhelming. - A treat for the road: My colleague Lesley Suter shared an [ode to the Andes mint](, the sweet conclusion to many restaurant meals. If you like this email, please forward it to a friend. If you aren't signed up for this newsletter, you can [do so right here](. — Paolo Bicchieri, SF reporter  [Learn more about RevenueStripe...]( [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [Instagram]( This email was sent to {EMAIL}. Manage your [email preferences]( or [unsubscribe](param=today). View our [Privacy Notice]( and our [Terms of Service](. Vox Media, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 11, Washington, DC 20036. Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved.