Tariffs

[Zero999]

I suppose it's possible, if it's consumed in huge quantities but that's a moot point.

Same with red dye 3 according to the fount of all knowledge:

In the United States, laboratory evidence of carcinogenicity of extremely high doses of erythrosine renders it as "unsafe" under federal law by a provision called the Delaney Clause, despite conclusions by the federal Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and Cancer Assessment Committee that the risk of developing cancer in humans is unlikely at the low erythrosine levels consumed as a food color.

It's true for any substance including water. I remember hearing about a woman who died by participating in a stupid radio contest, which involved drinking loads of water and not pissing.

It's not relevant to the question is whether additives used in food, in tiny amounts,increase the risk of certain diseases.

[SteveThackery]

What happens if a synthetic food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

What happens if a synthetic natural food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

You see the logical fallacy?

[SteveThackery]

But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.

WHAT!? And you know that how?

[tggzzz]

What happens if a synthetic food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

What happens if a synthetic natural food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

You see the logical fallacy?

More interesting question: what happens if a preservative (natural or synthetic or synthetic with an identical molecular structure) causes a problem in a tiny percentage of people?

[NiHaoMike]

What happens if a synthetic natural food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

You see the logical fallacy?

The best option is to not add color at all.

[tggzzz]

What happens if a synthetic natural food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

You see the logical fallacy?

The best option is to not add color at all.

But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.

WHAT!? And you know that how?

Some people are unaware of how much they don't know. There is a marked tendency for such people to confidently make simple definitive statements.

OTOH, people who do know the subject tend to make statements that are more nuanced and less definitive. That's not a bad way to distinguish people to trust/ignore.

[tggzzz]

What happens if a synthetic natural food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

You see the logical fallacy?

The best option is to not add color at all.

A more interesting question is s/colour/preservative/.

[Cyclotron]

What happens if a synthetic food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

What happens if a synthetic natural food dye causes or increases the risk of neurological problems, in even the tiniest percentage of people?

I think it's wise to err on the side of caution.

You see the logical fallacy?

More interesting question: what happens if a preservative (natural or synthetic or synthetic with an identical molecular structure) causes a problem in a tiny percentage of people?

Allergies exist. Some down right deadly to some people. We do not have a foolproof means to protect the population from everything. Nor do I believe we should.
Labeling is the solution to some extent to allergies but only when accurate.

A friend of mine said that our medical system is too good. Keeps saving stupid people and causing the herd to be less robust. While I'm never sure how serious he is, I find it amusing and likely somewhat accurate in some cases.

[Zero999]

But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.

WHAT!? And you know that how?

Red colouring from beetroot does not cause cancer. It isn't absorbed by the human body. You piss and shit it out. No, it's not a logical fallacy. It's common sense to use something which is known to be safe, rather than something else which doesn't have so much evidence to suggest it's safe.

[Analog Kid]

To me, the less processed, the fewer synthetic ingredients, the better. Can I give you a solid "scientific" analysis that proves that this is better for people's health outcomes overall? No, I cannot. But it intuitively feels right to me (and to a lot of other people too).

I'm glad you've admitted that your position is not supported by science.

Way to go, Steve: tar me with the "he's anti-science!" brush.
As if "science" is the be-all and end-all of all knowledge and truth.
As if "science" is always practiced objectively and without bias and without pecuniary prejudice.
As if "science" itself isn't, by its very nature, riddled with errors which are later discovered (and new errors created).

Look, I'm not a flat-Earther chemtrail-believing nutcase, OK?
And maybe if "science" paid a lot more attention to this whole matter of "natural" vs. not, then I'd be able to make an argument that might satisfy the "scientists" here. But since it doesn't, that's still a matter of conjecture. And yes, there are lots of nutcases on the "natural" bandwagon.
My mistrust of synthetics and "non-natural" stuff is based on a pretty solid history of mankind's fuckups, particularly in the last century, of hubristic certainty that the technologists were leading the way to a bright new future ("Better Living through Chemistry") which, in many cases, led to unmitigated disaster. I'm sure I don't have to enumerate those for you.

So yes, color me "science"-skeptical. Not that "science" hasn't revealed many, many useful and critical things, and in many cases made life on Earth better for all of us: I'm certainly not advocating a return to pre-public-sanitation times, which must have been horrendous. But it ain't perfect, and it shouldn't be treated as a religion.

[vad]

]I've heard about concern over emulsifiers, preservatives, sweeteners etc. and data to suggest they increase the likelihood of developing health problems, from neurological conditions, to diabetes. Unfortunately the data only shows an association, not cause and effect.
 
I sick to my position that excess consumption of ultra processed food , containing the above is  most likely to be the cause of health problems.

Specifically, red dye 3 has been shown to cause cancer in rats, though there's debate about that being indicative of the same in humans.
Other dyes have also seen some evidence for higher risks of cancer. The FDA has banned Red Dye 3, but the ban doesn't take effect until 2027. Wild.

I love hotdogs, I risk my life for a good hotdog (I think that every time I eat one).

But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.

And what exactly makes you think a beetroot-based dye is less carcinogenic than a synthetic one at equivalent amounts? Or did you just pull that out of thin air?

What makes you think that it might be as, or more harmful than red dye 3?

The fact the pigment in beetroot it isn't absorbed by the human body, suggests it's highly unlikely to cause any harm. I suppose it's possible, if it's consumed in huge quantities but that's a moot point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetroot?useskin=vector#Pigment

You can get colorectal cancer from substances in food that aren’t absorbed into the bloodstream but instead pass through / remain in the gut. The internet lists some examples: PAHs and HCAs from charred or smoked meats, secondary bile acids produced from animal fats by the gut microbiota, certain mycotoxins from moldy grains. And surprise, these carcinogens are all natural.

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

[John Coloccia]

As Jackie Mason once said, it's not about being healthy. It's picking a disease you like.

[Analog Kid]

You can get colorectal cancer from substances in food that aren’t absorbed into the bloodstream but instead pass through / remain in the gut. The internet lists some examples: PAHs and HCAs from charred or smoked meats, secondary bile acids produced from animal fats by the gut microbiota, certain mycotoxins from moldy grains. And surprise, these carcinogens are all natural.

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Yeah; pretty sure my dear old dad brought his two (three?) heart attacks (and maybe even his cancer) on himself, as he was a great steak-and-potatoes guy (not to mention liberal quantities of booze, plus smoking).

So what's your point here? All these are trivialities so far as I can tell: mankind has been well aware of all the dangers of what we ingest for millennia now.

But hey, let's add to that list by creating more and more synthetic chemicals and pouring them into our bodies! What could possibly go wrong?

[wilfred]

Many dangerous things are extracted from plants which humans have eaten for thousands of years.

Many food plants contain dangerous alkaloids (some hallucinogenic), caffeine, even cyanide in staple foodstuffs, and many others.

Natural == good only in the minds of the ignorant.

Natural equals good is probably taken to mean artificial is bad or not preferred. Yes some may adopt that view out of ignorance but no-one has to be well informed about all topics. That is why we employ experts and regulate foods. I am assuming humans have evolved to tolerate the naturally occurring substances we eat and we   eventually died from an excess of some things and hence life expectancy was governed by diet amongst other factors.  However rapidly introducing artificial additives that have little nutritional benefits seems unwise to me. I once heard chickens were fed a supplement to create yolks a more pleasing yellow colour. That is as unnecessary as a red M&M.

[NiHaoMike]

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Factory farmed junk, however, is hardly natural. The unnaturally high fat content from animals left with little room to move at all is the most obvious difference, then there's growth hormones and bioaccumulated pesticides to worry about.

[SteveThackery]

To me, the less processed, the fewer synthetic ingredients, the better. Can I give you a solid "scientific" analysis that proves that this is better for people's health outcomes overall? No, I cannot. But it intuitively feels right to me (and to a lot of other people too).

I'm glad you've admitted that your position is not supported by science.

Way to go, Steve: tar me with the "he's anti-science!" brush.

Wrong! I said no such thing. You said your position wasn't supported by science, and I agreed with you.

I've no idea whether you, personally, are anti-science.

[SteveThackery]

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Factory farmed junk, however, is hardly natural. The unnaturally high fat content from animals left with little room to move at all is the most obvious difference, then there's growth hormones and bioaccumulated pesticides to worry about.

I think it could be argued that cooked food isn't natural, either. It's the first form of processing we invented. Burned meat is carcinogenic, so we've been getting it wrong for a million years.

By the way, does anyone else think it is remarkable that no other species in the past million years has discovered fire? A million years is a long time, even at the timescales evolution works over.

[Cyclotron]

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Factory farmed junk, however, is hardly natural. The unnaturally high fat content from animals left with little room to move at all is the most obvious difference, then there's growth hormones and bioaccumulated pesticides to worry about.

I think it could be argued that cooked food isn't natural, either. It's the first form of processing we invented. Burned meat is carcinogenic, so we've been getting it wrong for a million years.

By the way, does anyone else think it is remarkable that no other species in the past million years has discovered fire? A million years is a long time, even at the timescales evolution works over.

I'm in. I mean, its not tariffs but its an interesting sideline. The majority of the research I've seen indicates that humans have evolved higher functioning brains that burn more energy because we discovered tooling and cooking to process food for greater energy extraction for the amount of energy spent.

That led to various other changes other than our brains. Our dental work and muscles have all changed.

What's funny to me is that our brains are now working out that the processes that allowed them to have these thoughts aren't all "good".

[John Coloccia]

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Factory farmed junk, however, is hardly natural. The unnaturally high fat content from animals left with little room to move at all is the most obvious difference, then there's growth hormones and bioaccumulated pesticides to worry about.

I think it could be argued that cooked food isn't natural, either. It's the first form of processing we invented. Burned meat is carcinogenic, so we've been getting it wrong for a million years.

By the way, does anyone else think it is remarkable that no other species in the past million years has discovered fire? A million years is a long time, even at the timescales evolution works over.

Ultimately, it's hard to argue with our life expectancy. I'm 51. Let me tell you right now, my 50s look WAY different than my parent's 50s.

I'm not saying that there aren't thing that can be improved, etc. I'm simply saying that things have been measurably improved.

So I have a hard time with "we've screwed everything up, we should go back to basics."  Back then, I would have been dead 20 years ago.  No thanks.  And even going back about 100 years, those people looked and acted like old men at my age. And I act and feel like a kid. So no thanks to that either.

I really question what "golden age" people are looking to go back to.

[coppercone2]

Its interesting with steaks that they lose alot of fat when they are cooked more. So while the food might be a little burned it also has a much higher ratio of protein to fat. And its edible, unlike over boiled meat.

[tautech]

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Factory farmed junk, however, is hardly natural. The unnaturally high fat content from animals left with little room to move at all is the most obvious difference, then there's growth hormones and bioaccumulated pesticides to worry about.

Please share the experience/qualifications you have to comment on such matters.

Regarding growth hormones, all is not as it seems and having done the courses before using them decades ago we were convinced they were worth investigating.
See here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tariffs/msg6006259/#msg6006259

[Cyclotron]

Its interesting with steaks that they lose alot of fat when they are cooked more. So while the food might be a little burned it also has a much higher ratio of protein to fat. And its edible, unlike over boiled meat.

Char or browning of meat is critical to creating the Mallard(?) effect, too lazy to check google. Anyway. It's the flavor that folks love in well-cooked meats. I think I recall it is also the same in vegetables. (also too lazy to validate that)

My favorite way to prepare steak is to sprinkle MSG and salt all around, then dry it on a drying rack in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Then smoke it slow at 180°Freedom degrees 82C as it slowly rises to 115°F 46C. Then I take it to a high flame and sear it while sprinkling some Montreal Steak seasoning on it. It will develop a deep red/brown crust rapidly due to the drying. I target rare to medium rare as my preference, 133F /56C.

Now I'm hungry.

[Cyclotron]

Back on topic.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4482946-us-businesses-are-absorbing-two-thirds-of-tariff-costs-so-far---goldman

Companies got a tax cut on one side, and basically tariffs take it on the other. That's wild.
I would think that those that have complained that Trump gave these tax breaks to the companies would be happy now, but I doubt it.

[vad]

]I've heard about concern over emulsifiers, preservatives, sweeteners etc. and data to suggest they increase the likelihood of developing health problems, from neurological conditions, to diabetes. Unfortunately the data only shows an association, not cause and effect.
 
I sick to my position that excess consumption of ultra processed food , containing the above is  most likely to be the cause of health problems.

Specifically, red dye 3 has been shown to cause cancer in rats, though there's debate about that being indicative of the same in humans.
Other dyes have also seen some evidence for higher risks of cancer. The FDA has banned Red Dye 3, but the ban doesn't take effect until 2027. Wild.

I love hotdogs, I risk my life for a good hotdog (I think that every time I eat one).

But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.

And what exactly makes you think a beetroot-based dye is less carcinogenic than a synthetic one at equivalent amounts? Or did you just pull that out of thin air?

What makes you think that it might be as, or more harmful than red dye 3?

The fact the pigment in beetroot it isn't absorbed by the human body, suggests it's highly unlikely to cause any harm. I suppose it's possible, if it's consumed in huge quantities but that's a moot point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetroot?useskin=vector#Pigment

You can get colorectal cancer from substances in food that aren’t absorbed into the bloodstream but instead pass through / remain in the gut. The internet lists some examples: PAHs and HCAs from charred or smoked meats, secondary bile acids produced from animal fats by the gut microbiota, certain mycotoxins from moldy grains. And surprise, these carcinogens are all natural.

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Red 3 was tested in animal studies, and: “The no-observed-adverse-effect levels established in these studies were 0.5% (251 mg/kg/day) for male rats and 1.0% (641 mg/kg/day) for females.” Long-term intake at 4,000 mg/kg/day caused thyroid gland enlargement in males only. No cancer was reported in any group.

Based on this and other scientific evidence, prior FDA administrations deemed it safe and non-carcinogenic at an ADI of 2.5 mg/kg/day in foods (100 below safe dose in animal studies). The top 10% of US consumers of Red 3 in foods ingest about 0.004 mg/kg/day, which is 62,500 times lower than the dose found to be safe in rats, and 1,000,000 times lower than the dose that caused thyroid enlargement in male rats (without cancer). The current FDA, run by an idiot, banned it without any scientific reason (but apparently that’s now called “free market capitalism,” as opposed to the left’s “socialism”).

Have there been similar safety studies on beet-based dyes? Has anyone tried feeding a poor rat 62,500 times and 1,000,000 times higher doses of beet juice to see how its thyroid gland is doing? That was my question, and my point.

[tggzzz]

Edit: And surprise, Homo species have been eating charred meat for about a million years.

Factory farmed junk, however, is hardly natural. The unnaturally high fat content from animals left with little room to move at all is the most obvious difference, then there's growth hormones and bioaccumulated pesticides to worry about.

I think it could be argued that cooked food isn't natural, either. It's the first form of processing we invented. Burned meat is carcinogenic, so we've been getting it wrong for a million years.

By the way, does anyone else think it is remarkable that no other species in the past million years has discovered fire? A million years is a long time, even at the timescales evolution works over.

Ultimately, it's hard to argue with our life expectancy. I'm 51. Let me tell you right now, my 50s look WAY different than my parent's 50s.

I'm not saying that there aren't thing that can be improved, etc. I'm simply saying that things have been measurably improved.

So I have a hard time with "we've screwed everything up, we should go back to basics."  Back then, I would have been dead 20 years ago.  No thanks.  And even going back about 100 years, those people looked and acted like old men at my age. And I act and feel like a kid. So no thanks to that either.

I really question what "golden age" people are looking to go back to.

The one where they didn't have so many worries - because they hadn't screwed their life up yet, because they were less knowledgeable, and because other people around them did the worrying to shield them.

As for life expectancy, when I started work people of my age were, on average, dead. During my working life the life expectancy has been increasing at about 4 months every year. Stunning.