-
What synthetic dyes do you feel are safe?
And better yet, why would you think that the benefits outweigh the risks here? What earthshaking, essential good would be forgone forever by banning such dyes?
"Ewwwww, my cupcake looked *so* gross, I could have hurled!"
In summary:QuoteA broad range of potential mechanisms by which the synthetic food dyes may impact behavior in susceptible children have been proposed. Additional research is warranted including: …
Such research would provide additional data to inform appropriate acceptable daily intakes that explicitly protect children from neurobehavioral effects. In the short-term, the neurobehavioral effects of synthetic food dyes in children should be acknowledged and steps taken to reduce exposure to these dyes in potentially susceptible children.
If you are a kid who is “potentially susceptible” (have ADHD), avoid these synthetic dyes until more research is completed and a refined ADI (acceptable daily intake) is established for your group.
One question: Have there been studies on the “neurobehavioral effects” (misbehavior) in children with ADHD who consumed soda or cupcakes colored with natural dyes? You said you are not consuming synthetic dyes and prefer natural dyes, so you must be more interested in the safety of what you do consume, right? -
One question: Have there been studies on the “neurobehavioral effects” (misbehavior) in children with ADHD who consumed soda or cupcakes colored with natural dyes? You said you are not consuming synthetic dyes and prefer natural dyes, so you must be more interested in the safety of what you do consume, right?
(I assume this was directed toward me)
That brings up an interesting aspect of this matter:
Back when I lived in the SF Bay Area there was a campaign in Oakland to ban sugary drinks from stores, to combat the ill health effects of kids consuming so much sugar.
On the surface it sounded perfectly reasonable, like so many other similar measures.
However, I started looking into this, and what I found showed that this effort was ill-conceived and ultimately not in the public interest.
What I did was very simple: I went to grocery stores, looked at labels and wrote down their sugar contents.
Guess what? Turned out that many "natural" drinks--ones that would not be covered by this ban--actually had more sugar than what this ban was aimed at, specifically colas. Pineapple juice in particular was just loaded with sugars. Apple juice was almost as bad.
This was apart from the other objection to this measure, that it was basically imposing a "nanny state" law on people, rather than just advising people on diet and health.
The measure passed anyway. (Of course, there was a good deal of influence from the "beverage industry" as well as pushback from retail grocers.)
So yes, "natural" doesn't always necessarily mean "better". (And besides, what does "natural" mean anyway? That has to be one of the most slippery and ill-defined terms when it comes to food marketing.)
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).
Unless one is involved in selling or promoting synthetic or processed foods, what's the harm of going "natural"?
I think all food should be organically grown: why should I have to pay a premium for this "luxury"? At this point we know enough about things like IPM (integrated pest management) to be able to move away from our dependence on petrochemicals to grow food.
I like Michael Pollan's (Author of The Botany of Desire and The Omnivore's Dilemma) three rules of food:- Eat food.
- Not too much.
- Mostly plants.
-
..........
What defines a petrochemical, anything made from petroleum products ?
Unless one is involved in selling or promoting synthetic or processed foods, what's the harm of going "natural"?
I think all food should be organically grown: why should I have to pay a premium for this "luxury"? At this point we know enough about things like IPM (integrated pest management) to be able to move away from our dependence on petrochemicals to grow food.
Urea is made from gas and without it Ag production will be dramatically reduced.......... -
No doubt there are many safe synthetic dyes, but I can understand why many people would rather avoid them.
I can't, because there is no possible logic to it. I can't understand why anyone would assume natural dyes are - in general - safer that synthetic ones. Why would they be? There are plenty of dangerous plants out there. The only reasonable position is to require that dyes of any origin are properly tested for safety. -
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. -
Does it matter? Do you think most people would be happy if the food companies started adding mouse, bat and rat meat to their food, even though there's no scientific evidence show they're harmful? On the contrary, they're all meats which some humans have consumed for thousands of years and are therefore safe.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.
Thank you for raising this. It's something I wanted to deal with in a follow up post.No doubt there are many safe synthetic dyes, but I can understand why many people would rather avoid them.
I can't, because there is no possible logic to it. I can't understand why anyone would assume natural dyes are - in general - safer that synthetic ones. Why would they be? There are plenty of dangerous plants out there. The only reasonable position is to require that dyes of any origin are properly tested for safety.
Most natural dyes are extracted from plants which humans have eaten for thousands of years. We so we know they're safe, so long as they're only consumed in the concentrations naturally present.
Synthetic dyes are only a recent introduction to our diets, so they require a large burden of proof for being safe.
Unlike medicines and vaccines, food dyes don't cure or prevent illness. They are purely cosmetic. No one would fall ill without them, so again, the evidence needs to be stronger to show they're safe, compared to pharmaceuticals.
Food regulators do exercise some caution when novel foods/additives appear, irrespective of whether they're natural or synthetic. The natural sweetener stevia extract took awhile to be approved in many counties, even though it's natural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia?useskin=vector#Regulation
-
In summary:
QuoteA broad range of potential mechanisms by which the synthetic food dyes may impact behavior in susceptible children have been proposed. Additional research is warranted including: …
Such research would provide additional data to inform appropriate acceptable daily intakes that explicitly protect children from neurobehavioral effects. In the short-term, the neurobehavioral effects of synthetic food dyes in children should be acknowledged and steps taken to reduce exposure to these dyes in potentially susceptible children.
If you are a kid who is “potentially susceptible” (have ADHD), avoid these synthetic dyes until more research is completed and a refined ADI (acceptable daily intake) is established for your group.
There is an obvious and massive problem with this - the in-built assumptions:
1/ synthetic dyes cause neurobehavioural effects
2/ ADHD means a child is potentially susceptible to the effects of synthetic dyes
2/ natural dyes don't warrant additional research
This is one of the worst examples of pseudo-science bullshit I've read in a while. This is not how you do science. The current state of nutritional science does not support any of those three starting assumptions.
It infuriates me when I see shit like this. This isn't science, it is pandering to irrational, uninformed, superstition. -
Does it matter? Do you think most people would be happy if the food companies started adding mouse, bat and rat meat to their food, even though there's no scientific evidence show they're harmful?
If they keep it secret, then of course not. If they are open about it, then fine: people can make an informed choice. -
Most natural dyes are extracted from plants which humans have eaten for thousands of years.
If it's true, that is a good argument which warrants further thought. Thanks for bringing it into the debate. -
Regarding points 1 and 2, probably not, but we don't know for sure.In summary:
QuoteA broad range of potential mechanisms by which the synthetic food dyes may impact behavior in susceptible children have been proposed. Additional research is warranted including: …
Such research would provide additional data to inform appropriate acceptable daily intakes that explicitly protect children from neurobehavioral effects. In the short-term, the neurobehavioral effects of synthetic food dyes in children should be acknowledged and steps taken to reduce exposure to these dyes in potentially susceptible children.
If you are a kid who is “potentially susceptible” (have ADHD), avoid these synthetic dyes until more research is completed and a refined ADI (acceptable daily intake) is established for your group.
There is an obvious and massive problem with this - the in-built assumptions:
1/ synthetic dyes cause neurobehavioural effects
2/ ADHD means a child is potentially susceptible to the effects of synthetic dyes
2/ natural dyes don't warrant additional research
This is one of the worst examples of pseudo-science bullshit I've read in a while. This is not how you do science. The current state of nutritional science does not support any of those three starting assumptions.
It infuriates me when I see shit like this. This isn't science, it is pandering to irrational, uninformed, superstition.
My own personal opinion is synthetic food dyes probably don't contribute any neurological problems. If there's any link, it's unlikely to be due to dyes. This association might be causal or effect. Someone with autism or ADHD might only feel comfortable with eating a restricted diet, or lack impulse control, so be more likely to eat highly processed food, which is packed with additives. It's also likely that consuming mostly processed foods which lack of micronutrients and cause high blood sugar and insulin levels and obesity, result in inflammation which increases the risk of developing neurological conditions.
We've dealt with point 3.
There's a lot of junk science and emotion governing behaviour but that's nothing new and has also crept into some public health authorities, but that's another topic.
Let's flip this around. What would happen if all synthetic food dyes were banned? Perhaps some foods might not look so pretty and brightly coloured, but no one would die or fall sick.
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. -
Can they? If you want to buy some ready made microwave "TV dinner" and everything in all the shops is either vegan, has oil products added to it to enhance color, has bugs in it because "you will eat ze bugs and be happy" or the same 2 type of meals that you ate last week, can you make a choice than?Does it matter? Do you think most people would be happy if the food companies started adding mouse, bat and rat meat to their food, even though there's no scientific evidence show they're harmful?
If they keep it secret, then of course not. If they are open about it, then fine: people can make an informed choice.
I went shopping, and fancied a lasagna the other day. The shop didn't have a single version of it with meat in it. I don't have time to drive to another shop, because it's my lunchtime at work which is limited. Am I free to choose?
The other day I was shopping for cheese, grabbed quickly, a new one from the cheese stand. It was vegan cheese. It was the most disgusting thing I ever tried, didn't melt correctly, and it dried out in 3 days. How could they sell it in the cheese stand? Its not cheese, it's not made from milk, it's packaged as cheese, indistinguishable unless you pay close attention. -
No one can be bothered to watch such a long video, but some doctors like him. I can post videos from his supporters, but I won't bother, for now.* "Science" by whose rules? The manufacturers and vendors of those substances?
I think Professor Dave has the best answer to your science denial, Big Pharma, and other “shit” RFK and MAHA is putting into the heads of their supporters:
You must be pretty naive if you believe in the "science" that results in gov't. regulation, or the lack thereof.
Ever heard of something called "Big Pharma"?
PS. If you’re also into flat Earth, chemtrails, and other “shit”, he has great videos on those topics too.
I'm also not a fan of RFK Junior, but there are also plenty of quacks in the FDA, as was revealed by the pandemic. For example masking 2 year olds, even though everyone knows young children won't wear them properly and there's evidence it's likely to retard communication skills.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10129335/
The FDA needs reforming. Funding cuts probably aren't a bad thing, but I doubt the current administration will do much good. -
No doubt there are many safe synthetic dyes, but I can understand why many people would rather avoid them.
I can't, because there is no possible logic to it. I can't understand why anyone would assume natural dyes are - in general - safer that synthetic ones. Why would they be? There are plenty of dangerous plants out there. The only reasonable position is to require that dyes of any origin are properly tested for safety.
As far as dyes go for food. They should be avoided. There's plenty of science showing that on the spectrum from whole foods to ultra-processed foods, the latter is prone to poor health outcomes for the consumer. I do not view any particular ingredient as safer than another, so that seems a reasonable position.
The testing must be done as you say. However, problems arise that feed back into the theory that whole foods are best.
The synthetic dyes approved by the FDA were tested. Suspicions were formed due to observations, prompting new tests and studies that revealed these synthetics may pose a problem.
I call this the "fallacy of settled science". I'm not accusing anyone of it. I'm pointing out my method for classifying some arguments I see all over.
-
No doubt there are many safe synthetic dyes, but I can understand why many people would rather avoid them.
I can't, because there is no possible logic to it. I can't understand why anyone would assume natural dyes are - in general - safer that synthetic ones. Why would they be? There are plenty of dangerous plants out there. The only reasonable position is to require that dyes of any origin are properly tested for safety.
Indeed "natural" vs. "synthetic" isn't enough for a guess about safety because, as you say, nature is full of harmful substances. "Natural", in this context, should be understood as something like "something very widely consumed in many cultures for thousands of years in large amounts with no reported ill effects". Like, say, maybe antocyanins in stuff like blueberries and many others?
Potatoes for example - neurotoxic. But we have the knowledge how to use them correctly, like, avoid exposing them to light, ditch green ones, remove sprouts.
Mushrooms are interesting specifically. It seems we can fully trust only a few most popular species, like Cantharellus here. Paxillus involutus was considered edible till 1970's, and it took as long as late 1990's to realize Tricholoma equestre are toxic - both deadly, but cause complex reactions (like muscles decomposing into blood stream and blocking your veins; bon appétit!) only in rare cases, and no one understands exactly why. And both were quite popular mushrooms - but not extremely popular, that's the point. Something to be picked up by mushroom enthusiasts.
But I would still defend "naturality" a little bit. As long as we understand in the meaning of very popular, over very long time, with extremely well known track record.
Just like lesser-used natural products (like Tricholoma equestre) can be surprisingly dangerous, same risk applies to "well tested" synthetic options. How well they are actually tested?
But in the end, it's about risk-taking. Not completely trusting also does not warrant fear-mongering. -
Allergies and intolerance are also issues. The longer a food has been consumed and by a wider group of people, the more we know about its safety profile.No doubt there are many safe synthetic dyes, but I can understand why many people would rather avoid them.
I can't, because there is no possible logic to it. I can't understand why anyone would assume natural dyes are - in general - safer that synthetic ones. Why would they be? There are plenty of dangerous plants out there. The only reasonable position is to require that dyes of any origin are properly tested for safety.
Indeed "natural" vs. "synthetic" isn't enough for a guess about safety because, as you say, nature is full of harmful substances. "Natural", in this context, should be understood as something like "something very widely consumed in many cultures for thousands of years in large amounts with no reported ill effects". Like, say, maybe antocyanins in stuff like blueberries and many others?
Potatoes for example - neurotoxic. But we have the knowledge how to use them correctly, like, avoid exposing them to light, ditch green ones, remove sprouts.
Mushrooms are interesting specifically. It seems we can fully trust only a few most popular species, like Cantharellus here. Paxillus involutus was considered edible till 1970's, and it took as long as late 1990's to realize Tricholoma equestre are toxic - both deadly, but cause complex reactions (like muscles decomposing into blood stream and blocking your veins; bon appétit!) only in rare cases, and no one understands exactly why. And both were quite popular mushrooms - but not extremely popular, that's the point. Something to be picked up by mushroom enthusiasts.
But I would still defend "naturality" a little bit. As long as we understand in the meaning of very popular, over very long time, with extremely well known track record.
Just like lesser-used natural products (like Tricholoma equestre) can be surprisingly dangerous, same risk applies to "well tested" synthetic options. How well they are actually tested?
But in the end, it's about risk-taking. Not completely trusting also does not warrant fear-mongering.
I also consider the risk vs benefit of additives to be different. For example we should be more risk averse when it comes to dyes, because all they do is make food look nice, but can accept a slightly higher degree of risk with preservatives, because they help food last for longer, reducing energy consumption and growth of harmful microbes.
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.No doubt there are many safe synthetic dyes, but I can understand why many people would rather avoid them.
I can't, because there is no possible logic to it. I can't understand why anyone would assume natural dyes are - in general - safer that synthetic ones. Why would they be? There are plenty of dangerous plants out there. The only reasonable position is to require that dyes of any origin are properly tested for safety.
As far as dyes go for food. They should be avoided. There's plenty of science showing that on the spectrum from whole foods to ultra-processed foods, the latter is prone to poor health outcomes for the consumer. I do not view any particular ingredient as safer than another, so that seems a reasonable position.
The testing must be done as you say. However, problems arise that feed back into the theory that whole foods are best.
The synthetic dyes approved by the FDA were tested. Suspicions were formed due to observations, prompting new tests and studies that revealed these synthetics may pose a problem.
I call this the "fallacy of settled science". I'm not accusing anyone of it. I'm pointing out my method for classifying some arguments I see all over.
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.
In the UK we have a sugar tax on soft drinks containing over 5g of sugar per 100ml. Many so-called experts deem to be a success, but there's no evidence to support it. It appears to be a failure. It hasn't reduced childhood obesity rates, which have continued on the same trajectory as before.One question: Have there been studies on the “neurobehavioral effects” (misbehavior) in children with ADHD who consumed soda or cupcakes colored with natural dyes? You said you are not consuming synthetic dyes and prefer natural dyes, so you must be more interested in the safety of what you do consume, right?
(I assume this was directed toward me)
That brings up an interesting aspect of this matter:
Back when I lived in the SF Bay Area there was a campaign in Oakland to ban sugary drinks from stores, to combat the ill health effects of kids consuming so much sugar.
On the surface it sounded perfectly reasonable, like so many other similar measures.
However, I started looking into this, and what I found showed that this effort was ill-conceived and ultimately not in the public interest.
What I did was very simple: I went to grocery stores, looked at labels and wrote down their sugar contents.
Guess what? Turned out that many "natural" drinks--ones that would not be covered by this ban--actually had more sugar than what this ban was aimed at, specifically colas. Pineapple juice in particular was just loaded with sugars. Apple juice was almost as bad.
This was apart from the other objection to this measure, that it was basically imposing a "nanny state" law on people, rather than just advising people on diet and health.
The measure passed anyway. (Of course, there was a good deal of influence from the "beverage industry" as well as pushback from retail grocers.)
So yes, "natural" doesn't always necessarily mean "better". (And besides, what does "natural" mean anyway? That has to be one of the most slippery and ill-defined terms when it comes to food marketing.)
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).
Unless one is involved in selling or promoting synthetic or processed foods, what's the harm of going "natural"?
I think all food should be organically grown: why should I have to pay a premium for this "luxury"? At this point we know enough about things like IPM (integrated pest management) to be able to move away from our dependence on petrochemicals to grow food.
I like Michael Pollan's (Author of The Botany of Desire and The Omnivore's Dilemma) three rules of food:- Eat food.
- Not too much.
- Mostly plants.
Drink manufactures have swamped the sugar for no calorie sweeteners and there's no proof that simply switching do diet soda results in any weight loss or health benefits. There's evidence to suggest artificial sweeteners increase insulin levels, most likely because of the sweet taste, which could cause a compensatory increase in hunger, calorie intake and risk of developing diabetes. -
]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.]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.]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).
I love beets. Especially pickled beets. I don't object to their coloring at all. I often color my pickled eggs with beets.
Bother me? No, not likely for anything that I select to consume. I'm not personally bothered by Red Dye 3, but I see why it is good to eliminate it from food. Personally, I encourage simplification and honest food.
Lots of these things are used as tools to entice and market to people. Those tools are fine to some extent, but just like the US allows pharmaceutical companies to directly market drugs on media to consumers, it's probably not the wisest thing we allow in society.
-
Most natural dyes are extracted from plants which humans have eaten for thousands of years.
If it's true, that is a good argument which warrants further thought. Thanks for bringing it into the debate.
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.
-
The other day I was shopping for cheese, grabbed quickly, a new one from the cheese stand. It was vegan cheese. It was the most disgusting thing I ever tried, didn't melt correctly, and it dried out in 3 days. How could they sell it in the cheese stand? Its not cheese, it's not made from milk, it's packaged as cheese, indistinguishable unless you pay close attention.
Yes vegan cheese is disgusting. In general faux food (i.e. pretending to be something else) is unpleasant. Non-faux vegan food can be delicious; I particularly like south Indian dosa idli, thoran, aviyal, sambar, and similar.
My daughter makes ice cream, and both vegan and non-vegan ice cream is sufficiently delicious that it has won awards at national agricultural shows (where they don't give a toss about it being vegan).
35 years ago I came across "fat-free sour cream" and "egg-free omelettes" - in the USA, where else. -
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?
But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.]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). -
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.
Some like to lick frogs.... Indeed nicotine, one of the most addictive substances to humans is a pesticide and natural to all night-shade plants, pepper, potato, tomato , tobacco.
I so love nicotine.... I quit smoking maybe 10 years ago. I swear, when I get in my later years, if I can find it, I will so use nicotine again. -
Drink manufactures have swamped the sugar for no calorie sweeteners and there's no proof that simply switching do diet soda results in any weight loss or health benefits. There's evidence to suggest artificial sweeteners increase insulin levels, most likely because of the sweet taste, which could cause a compensatory increase in hunger, calorie intake and risk of developing diabetes.
There's a rise in unsweetened sodas like La Croix. That's the only kind of soda I drink nowadays. -
What makes you think that it might be as, or more harmful than red dye 3?
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?
But would it really bother you if they swapped red dye 3 for beetroot extract? Similar red colour, no cancer risk.]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).
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 -
Quote
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:QuoteIn 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.