I work on the ingredients industry, there are plenty of natural colors to choose from… for red specifically we have carmine, black carrot extract, beet extract… why companies don’t use it? They are slightly more expensive than artificial dyes
In Europe natural colours are used, in part due to legislation, and marketing a product as "natural ingredients", even if the product is as healthy as a glazed donut.
People always diss California (often for good reasons), but they've done so much good by enacting smart regulations that end up benefiting the whole country.
Having a former governor from Austria helps i guess... I don't think it would have happened if the governor wasn't so invested in physical health as Arnold is.
@@hemantkejriwal6925 Thank the conservative controlled Supreme Court. Look up Citizens United vs FEC. And Ted Cruz won his lawsuit about using personal funds and getting a tax write to recoup personal money in politics. Republicans love corruption.
nothing will ever change while the system exists as it is. money talks louder than the voices of the people. and if lobbyists want poison in your food to save money on natural food dyes then so be it
don't forget about the revolving door many industries have with their regulators/auditors/etc.! Hi Jim, thanks for killing that bill that would have stoped us from dumping toxic waste in per-schools a few years back, really helped us save a few bucks there. How does $200k a year and stock options sound?
"Red 3 has been banned for food use in the European Union, except in some cherry products, since 1994. It's also banned in Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand." - Center for Science in the Public Interest
@@masterofallgoonsBecause consumers are used to liqueurs and filled chocolates that taste of cherry having a quite specific red hue, and neither liqueurs nor chocolates are eaten (almost) daily and/or in large amounts. Source: a semi-educated guess
Fund the FDA. Give them more power. And stop the party of deregulation from ever getting into power at all levels of government. Maybe then they will start embracing science instead of only money and hatred.
thanks. of course it had to be 8 mins and 3 seconds long to get the sweet mid roll ad. thank god/sam altman for ai that i use to summarize these worthless videos. i bet they used ai to blow up the content to take up 8 mins too.
Dear food and beverage makers: this shouldn’t need saying. I couldn’t care less if my breakfast cereal, fruit punch, or evening snack looks unnaturally red. Just stop trying to sell potentially toxic substances to me and my family!
It's more complicated than that. I've done research on this. The FDA and many government organizations have been lobbied heavily and more and more their hands are tied. The US supreme court, under John Roberts, wants all of these agencies out and let companies regulate themselves. Anytime you hear 'too much regulation' from any politician, that's them being bought and sold by companies who want free market capitalism without any of these pesky regulations such and food safety.
Sure would be nice for people to understand that synthetic doesn't mean bad and that the cancer study in question was hilariously bad. Vox has let out a bunch of videos lately that are just down the chemo phobia bent. I'm all for banning use of compounds for a variety of reasons. The issue is, synthetic isn't a good one to use.
I just recently did a presentation for my Business class on Kelloggs putting artificial food dyes in its food so I find this vid came at the right time for me🙏🏾
That explains why companies still use it. It doesn't explain why the FDA has been so slow to do something about it (or at least, it doesn't directly explain such). Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen of course, but given that they've banned other chemicals - including in recent years - one would desire more detail than just "durr lobbyists" to explain why this particular chemical is holding on while others get hit by the ban hammer.
There is too much overlap. Consider energy drinks. Surely they don't count as medicine, so they'd fall under the scope of the Food department. But they contain caffeine and other chemicals which require pharmacological experts to fully understand. You'd either need to have double sets of experts working at both branches or constantly share information between them and hope that nothing gets lost in transit.
And maybe they actually don’t think of it as an urgent danger compared to other things they could do. There are probably many things with much stronger esta showing it’s dangerous to people.
In my country, the food, drugs and sanitary agency are all in the same bureau (ANVISA). It's not a problem of overlapping, because these things overlap in real life, but it's just plain underfunding of the FDA, and lack of regulatory power.
So then if they are in violation of the delaney provision, and have known for atleast 34 years, why haven’t they banned it? It has to be lobbying, it doesn’t take a half century to get around to it - especially if it was banned in cosmetics.
You didn't mention the colour E123 - Amaranth FD&C Red n. 2. FDA banned it in the US in 1976; but E123 is allowed in Europe. The US ban of Red #2 has always had me puzzled, because it seemed more the work of activists rather than the work of researchers...
I bought a box of Nerds recently, they're not normally for sale here and were in the imported section. They are made in the US, but on the front of the box is says "made with natural colours" - just fruit and vegetable extracts. Nerds sold in the US contain - Carmine Color, Blue 1 Lake, Blue 1, Blue 2 Lake, Red 40 Lake, Yellow 5 Lake, Yellow 5, Yellow 6. It's good they don't contain Red 3, but instead they contain Carmine (also knows as cochineal) which is made from bugs. The version I bough contain concentrated watermelon juice, which I assume is the red colour, I know which I'd prefer. I'd be surprised if the colours used in these made for export version costs then more than a few cents extra, so it's sad they're not prepared to do that for the US market.
I would like to not bash cochineal as it's just as natural as the color from watermelon juice and has no harmful effects, as far as I know. It's a massive step in the right direction. Most importantly, the people who produce it massively need the business or the practice will go extinct and their salaries with it. If my eating bug dye helps these people eat dinner, then I'd be glad to do so.
our bodies never evolved to be able to handle all these artificial substances and additives. It makes me feel bad for the people who can't handle them, especially because companies are trying to change the names of artificial ingredients, which makes it harder for the people with allergies to additives to avoid allergic reactions...
This one was a little disappointing. What is Red 3? What in the chemical composition seems to cause issues? What are the results of the studies in data? What is the rate of increased cancer? What were the doses given in the studies? We need to know more to understand the risks better.
Wow. All you need to do are find those answers for yourself. The point of videos like this are to lightly inform and inspire you to know more. There are plenty of documentaries that explain in depth but you need to find them for yourself.
I always thought that American products sometimes tend to look so artificial it would make me NOT consume it so the fact that American people are taught by sheer normalcy that these artificial dyes makes it more appealing is really concerning
A lot of important information was left out of this one. But to me the most glaring one is that the study used to link Red 3 to "behavioral issues" didn't even point to Red 3 specifically. It assessed all dyes. At most they summarized one study in rodents that focused on Red 3, but they also summarized other studies in rodents for other dyes. Their conclusions also speak of all dyes as a whole, never singling Red 3 out. And that is key information, because if their concern truly was "behavioral issues in children" then all dyes should be suspect, not just Red 3. It is also glaring that they left out critical information regarding the study linking Red 3 to thyroid cancer, as pointed out by plenty of other people. Overall I don't feel there was enough due diligence with this report.
Did we watch the same video? I definitely remember them mentioning the link to Thyroid Cancer, and while it may have not been clearly stated, it was at least clear to me at a few points in the video that they had moved on from singling out Red 3 and were then making the implication you are suggesting, which is that it's all dyes that are the problem. The guy from the advocacy group in particular seemed to have made that argument when mentioning how none of the dyes do anything useful for the food at all, they are only used for aesthetics.
@moogle68 they mentioned the link to thyroid cancer. They also recognized that the competent authorities say the evidence for it isn't conclusive. They don't go into why. And the why in this case is very important, because it has to do with the dosis employed in the study. The laboratory animals were subject to dosis of Red 3 that are just absurdly unrealistic. And the problem is that any molecule can lead to adverse effects if given in extreme dosis, and that includes increasing cancer risk. For example a hypervitaminosis of B12 has been associated with an increased risk of certain cancers. The case against Red 3, as presented in the report, hinges upon it being linked to thyroid cancer and behavioral issues. But as explained above, the link to thyroid cancer is dubious from a scientific point of view, and the link to behavioral issues was not exclusive to Red 3. And I would also like to add that "behavioral issues" is too ambiguous a term which can also lead to misinterpretation. The study specifically found that it has a negative effect in children diagnosed with ADHD because it exacerbates their symptoms, and they also add that the effect was limited to children with ADHD, with no appreciable effect in children without ADHD. All of those details are important. And none were part of the report. So I stand by my initial assessment that they did a poor job in explaining the topic thoroughly.
Cancer has now become the leading cause of death in some countries, like Canada and the second cause of death in the United States. It is wiser to electively wake up to this startling statistic now rather than having ones wake up call being in the form of an unexpected diagnosis, subsequent last minute chemotherapy sessions and an untimely funeral.
For me as a kid it was Yellow 5 that made me SUPER hyper. This was to a point that when my mom cut me off of it on a weekend and sent a note to school monday asking my kindergarten teacher to let her know how I was acting, the teacher thought that my mom put me on medication. 😆
FYI, Health Canada distinguishes Red Dye No. 3 from “pigment red 3,” which is not permitted in food or cosmetics in Canada. This suggests that Red 3 used in food products is not the same as the banned pigment red 3 used in cosmetics.
7:04 "these food dyes are not necessary. They exist purely as a marketing tool for the food industry" Lots of studies have shown that colours influence how our brains perceive taste. Unless you consider taste as a marketing tool, your statement in therefore false. (that doesn't make it right to use dangerous dyes, anyway)
So in addition for marketing tool they are even linked to quality, great. Implying that if you need color to enhance the perception, that the original preception might not be great. I might have very strage tastes, but the terible looking dishes are usually very good.
I think by "these food dyes", they're referring to the synthetic ones, not to natural food dyes. Yes, colors influence how we perceive taste. However, it's not like these processed foods would all end up being grey or a similar off-putting color.
@@redbloodedbutterfly Maybe. But if their concern is the dyes being natural or not, then they're also wrong. In the matter of safety, what counts is the process to ensure it, not the origin of the component. You can have dangerous natural dyes and harmless synthetic ones. Processed food is not inherently bad, it's bad because we put things in it that were not thoroughly tested or that we know are harmful but but allowed by authorities due to lobbying (or a lack of means to control it, depending on the country). Though, the origin of an ingredient is important for something else and it's at least ecology. Like... asking if bringing one from the other side of the globe just to make a food last 10% longer or appear redder is worth it. (spoiler: no)
The easy way to go about this is to ban all Azo dyes, like red #40, yellow #6, yellow #5, blue #1. They've been to some degree linked to causing allergic responses, hyperactivity and ADHD in children. It's better to be on the safe side, as many have said there are a lot of dyes coming straight from vegetables etc. that we know for a fact is safe. Or, to at least not have them in products specifically marketed towards kids.
So these food dyes cause that, but if someone were to say a vaccine caused it, that's totally a tin-foil hat moment, right? Might want to start wearing one yourself!
@@soulfire. Beef ain't healthy generally, organic or grass fed doesn't matter that much (for nutrition, animal welfare is another question ofc), it's still red meat.
It's tough considering glyphosate-based pesticides they still use in most countries, but generally any food that has anti-inflammatory properties is good against developing cancer.
Idk if i actually have adhd or not. I definitely have symptoms. I got diagnosed at 16 and I feel like red dye makes me more hyper but could be a placebo effect. I remember being more talkative and having more energy after eating red sweet and sour sauce as a kid but who knows
An important detail that shouldn't be left out: In the study where they tested red 3 on rats and found a link between it and thyroid cancer. They gave the rats around 2500mg per kilogram of weight daily of the dye which would be something like 200 grams (0.44 pounds) per day for an average north American. The amount they gave them is ridiculously large and as we know the dose makes the poison... Soooo yeah...
Generally the LD50 for lab rats is surprisingly equivalent to humans regardless of size. Rats are incredibly resistant to all sorts of things. The only poison they're less resistant than humans is alcohol. What the difference is when it comes to carcinogens I can't say for sure, but you generally can't scale these things one to one.
Company interests > public interests Who funds politicians' campaigns? It's certainly not the bulk of the American public, they're barely making enough to scrape by!
companies know that colours are more appetizing. a lot of foods that come out of factories are really bad colours- greys, browns, pinks. Butter has to be dyed yellow, otherwise it's a stick of grey. edit: companies shouldn't be able to sell ultra-processed food anyway, but oh well
I just realized 99% of red candy specifically clear gummies have the exact same colour just a little less or more saturated Without red 3 All red candy has to have natural colour
My ADHDer goes absolutely bonkers with red dyes. I had to go through all his Halloween candy and take out about a third of it. His favorite cereal is Froot Loops, and the only version I can find without red dye is the Aldi store brand.
no correlation between food dye and adhd symptoms, read the literature also no way to be sure that it’s actually the dye that is exacerbating your ADHD symptoms
Why should we expect the government to protect us from the corporations that fill their campaign coffers? This Country has been run by campaign contributors for many many years, and now that a handful of corporations own almost everything, they decide how this country is run. Remember, it's all for the shareholders.
Simple answer : regulatory capture. Secondary answer : the regulatory framework in the U.S. (unlike Europe) with few exceptions is NOT based on the "precautionary principle". I.e. In Europe, a new substance must be shown to be safe before it is used, while in the U.S. a new substance is presumed safe until it is proven to be dangerous.
I heard about this a couple weeks ago while watching something else so I went and checked my American candy to see if it was present. It wasn't. I checked my American pop tarts and it wasn't there. So glad I live in Australia because my country makes sure the food I eat is safe.
It's such a shame that the marketing is somehow powerful enough to necessitate putting the coloring in these foods. Are consumers really so superficial that they care so much about colors? This kinda goes in line with the cheese video where making a cheese more yellow made it look better for consumers.
We are neglecting this argument from a psychology angle. I think even if a food dye is safe to consume, it doesn't necessarily mean it's okay for your psychology. If your brain associates wonderful colors (I think of mangos, cooked shellfish, and berries) with nutrient dense food it is probably a lot healthier than associating these colors with sugar water and candy which don't provide essential nutrients or provide other benefits like many colorful carotenoids/antioxidants. I think its a huge part of our evolution to associate colors with nutrients and hacking this with synthetic colors is a much bigger problem than the chemical properties of the drug (poisoning and toxicity is a lot more cut and dry than psychology). Not having a good color-to-nutrient feedback cycle is probably a good part of why we are so obese I posit.
Brach's makes me disappointed, they make a nostalgic childhood candy, that could change it's taste so it's not so headacheingly sweet, and change how it looks so it doesn't put people at risk, but no, they would rather not
Mice were fed a diet where Erythosine (Red 3) was 4% of their diet. That’s a very high dose. Other studies say it’s not genotoxic. Does it actually seem weird that scientists say the mice studies may not be relevant? I get that this guy is doing his job but when he says something like (paraphrasing)”why does the FDA not ban foods that we know are unsafe?” It seems he is overstating it by quite a bit. (At least according to reading a few online resources)
What about the other colors? I swear I am attracted to blue flavored things, like FD&C Blue, or Blue Lake No. 1. Any insight or anyone else have this experience?
I'm sure there is a blue and red dye you use in your foods that we banned in the EU around the 2000s. Sunny D and blue smarties were taken off the market here for about a year and came back with a new formula. This is what I cant understand, big brands already make the EU versions so why not switch on their own. The new formula is already made.
What about this building "contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm," and the complacency that comes from ignoring it?
Excellent video!! I truly don't understand why the clear and obvious conflicts of interest that happen Every Day at the FDA are allowed to continue to happen. We should have the same effective food safety agency that the EU has!! It's infuriating, & to watch Congress do nothing at all is even more infuriating!!!😡😡😡
Hmm strange that the head of the FDA is a political appointee not an official who can be voted out. Also a massive coincidence that ALL presidents of BOTH parties assign a former lobbyist to the position.
The Delaney Clause was nullified in 1996 with the food quality protection act; so although it was lazy for the FDA, they technically weren’t breaking the law ://
Animal research is being found not to be so relevant to humans. One example, I believe I recall, was penicillin which was found to have a negative impact on animals but not on humans.
Throughout this video I heard "is linked to" meaning that one thing happened, and then another thing happened some time later after that. What it does NOT mean is that the first thing CAUSED the second thing. I agree that the FDA needs to get off its duff and find the causation, if it exists. We should not, however, assume that substance X is bad just because of something that happened hours or days or weeks later to a person who consumed it. If we assume that correlation is causation, then we should also assume that a crowing rooster can make the sun rise (100% correlation).
I completely disagree with the last part saying that it does nothing expect a marketing tool. There have been numerous studys showing that color is also associated with taste. Though i would 100% give up the red color if it meant the a safer food.
"You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally received and practiced on." -- Benjamin Franklin
FDA sitting on its heels reeks of lobbying, but so does research that focuses on "behavior problems in children". If there were any problems would it happen only to children and to their behaviors? The conclusion may be the same "Don't use Red 3", but how we get there should be somewhat important, especially as a news organization.
I've stopped eating packaged foods for years now. I prepare almost everything I eat. I'm livid that I've been (unwittingly) poisoned for the first 30 years of my life.
1 word: lobbying
1 letter: h
Lol, imagine being American.
depopulation
Bruh no way you’re here, I watch your cut updates ideas series
@@SevenGears1 byte: 10011101
I work on the ingredients industry, there are plenty of natural colors to choose from… for red specifically we have carmine, black carrot extract, beet extract… why companies don’t use it? They are slightly more expensive than artificial dyes
You just answered your own question.... slightly more expensive.
Why would corporations want to spend where they can cut costs? 😂
@@Xeonerable The question was towards the reader. OP just answered it themselves...
They never even explained what red 3 was chemically 😂
In Europe natural colours are used, in part due to legislation, and marketing a product as "natural ingredients", even if the product is as healthy as a glazed donut.
People always diss California (often for good reasons), but they've done so much good by enacting smart regulations that end up benefiting the whole country.
As a Californian I approve this message. 👍🏼
Lol, imagine being American.
Having a former governor from Austria helps i guess...
I don't think it would have happened if the governor wasn't so invested in physical health as Arnold is.
@@laladieladada The Governator has been out of office for years.
people usually ignore their labels, tho
It's just all lobbying. It astounds me how such open lobbying is totally legal in a democracy like USA
@@hemantkejriwal6925 Thank the conservative controlled Supreme Court. Look up Citizens United vs FEC. And Ted Cruz won his lawsuit about using personal funds and getting a tax write to recoup personal money in politics. Republicans love corruption.
nothing will ever change while the system exists as it is. money talks louder than the voices of the people. and if lobbyists want poison in your food to save money on natural food dyes then so be it
Call it what it is. Legal bribes
Is it really a democracy?
don't forget about the revolving door many industries have with their regulators/auditors/etc.!
Hi Jim, thanks for killing that bill that would have stoped us from dumping toxic waste in per-schools a few years back, really helped us save a few bucks there. How does $200k a year and stock options sound?
"Red 3 has been banned for food use in the European Union, except in some cherry products, since 1994. It's also banned in Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand." - Center for Science in the Public Interest
Basically the entire developed world -USA, Canada… and South Korea i guess
Why make the exception for some cherry products?
USA winning again, we need more toxins in our food
@@masterofallgoonsBecause consumers are used to liqueurs and filled chocolates that taste of cherry having a quite specific red hue, and neither liqueurs nor chocolates are eaten (almost) daily and/or in large amounts.
Source: a semi-educated guess
@@ronjaj.addams-ramstedt1023 - A pretty reasonable guess, I'd say
To save you 8 minutes. The FDA just is not doing their job, deliberately.
Thanks!
TLDW 🍭
Yes, dont understand why video cant be straight to the point; unsubscribing.
Fund the FDA. Give them more power. And stop the party of deregulation from ever getting into power at all levels of government. Maybe then they will start embracing science instead of only money and hatred.
thanks. of course it had to be 8 mins and 3 seconds long to get the sweet mid roll ad.
thank god/sam altman for ai that i use to summarize these worthless videos. i bet they used ai to blow up the content to take up 8 mins too.
Red 3: Too unsafe for lipstick, but tolerable risk for “snack” food 🤮
It's okay as long as we can't see the inflammation 😂
This feels like it should be the basis of a _Last Week Tonight_ with John Oliver.
I don't think that FDA just sits idle.
It is just that the Lobbying Groups and Sponsors of Politicians have far more power than the FDA.
Goyslop
Dear food and beverage makers: this shouldn’t need saying. I couldn’t care less if my breakfast cereal, fruit punch, or evening snack looks unnaturally red. Just stop trying to sell potentially toxic substances to me and my family!
you mean doesn’t look red
doesnt matter what you say. what matters is how you subliminally react to seeing the brighter red color. you are cattle.
Hahaha! As if they care at all about you or your family! They are literally poisoning them for profit!
Your the one eating it in the first place, just eat whole foods you dont need any of that stuff in the first place
The thing is, you do. You just don't know it.
Sure would be nice to have an FDA that took its job seriously.
It's more complicated than that. I've done research on this. The FDA and many government organizations have been lobbied heavily and more and more their hands are tied. The US supreme court, under John Roberts, wants all of these agencies out and let companies regulate themselves.
Anytime you hear 'too much regulation' from any politician, that's them being bought and sold by companies who want free market capitalism without any of these pesky regulations such and food safety.
Sure would be nice if the FDA had the budget, personell and authority to do their job.
Trump defunded the FDA. They’re running on a limp leg and your solution is to remove his last working leg.
Sure would be nice for people to understand that synthetic doesn't mean bad and that the cancer study in question was hilariously bad. Vox has let out a bunch of videos lately that are just down the chemo phobia bent. I'm all for banning use of compounds for a variety of reasons. The issue is, synthetic isn't a good one to use.
The mice were fed a diet where the dye made up 4% of their diet.
That’s a super high amount.
I just recently did a presentation for my Business class on Kelloggs putting artificial food dyes in its food so I find this vid came at the right time for me🙏🏾
Why is X still in X? Money always money.
That explains why companies still use it. It doesn't explain why the FDA has been so slow to do something about it (or at least, it doesn't directly explain such). Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen of course, but given that they've banned other chemicals - including in recent years - one would desire more detail than just "durr lobbyists" to explain why this particular chemical is holding on while others get hit by the ban hammer.
So, it's good for economy?
It is actually NOT lobbying. It's because the FDA is overworked and underfunded. We need to split them into FA and DA
There is too much overlap. Consider energy drinks. Surely they don't count as medicine, so they'd fall under the scope of the Food department. But they contain caffeine and other chemicals which require pharmacological experts to fully understand. You'd either need to have double sets of experts working at both branches or constantly share information between them and hope that nothing gets lost in transit.
And maybe they actually don’t think of it as an urgent danger compared to other things they could do.
There are probably many things with much stronger esta showing it’s dangerous to people.
In my country, the food, drugs and sanitary agency are all in the same bureau (ANVISA). It's not a problem of overlapping, because these things overlap in real life, but it's just plain underfunding of the FDA, and lack of regulatory power.
So then if they are in violation of the delaney provision, and have known for atleast 34 years, why haven’t they banned it? It has to be lobbying, it doesn’t take a half century to get around to it - especially if it was banned in cosmetics.
You didn't mention the colour E123 - Amaranth FD&C Red n. 2.
FDA banned it in the US in 1976; but E123 is allowed in Europe.
The US ban of Red #2 has always had me puzzled, because it seemed more the work of activists rather than the work of researchers...
I bought a box of Nerds recently, they're not normally for sale here and were in the imported section.
They are made in the US, but on the front of the box is says "made with natural colours" - just fruit and vegetable extracts.
Nerds sold in the US contain - Carmine Color, Blue 1 Lake, Blue 1, Blue 2 Lake, Red 40 Lake, Yellow 5 Lake, Yellow 5, Yellow 6.
It's good they don't contain Red 3, but instead they contain Carmine (also knows as cochineal) which is made from bugs.
The version I bough contain concentrated watermelon juice, which I assume is the red colour, I know which I'd prefer.
I'd be surprised if the colours used in these made for export version costs then more than a few cents extra, so it's sad they're not prepared to do that for the US market.
I would like to not bash cochineal as it's just as natural as the color from watermelon juice and has no harmful effects, as far as I know. It's a massive step in the right direction.
Most importantly, the people who produce it massively need the business or the practice will go extinct and their salaries with it. If my eating bug dye helps these people eat dinner, then I'd be glad to do so.
I’m so glad I live in Europe where these damaging additives are forbidden to use in the food industry.
our bodies never evolved to be able to handle all these artificial substances and additives. It makes me feel bad for the people who can't handle them, especially because companies are trying to change the names of artificial ingredients, which makes it harder for the people with allergies to additives to avoid allergic reactions...
This one was a little disappointing. What is Red 3? What in the chemical composition seems to cause issues? What are the results of the studies in data? What is the rate of increased cancer? What were the doses given in the studies? We need to know more to understand the risks better.
Then go read the research papers on it
Took me all of 10 seconds to look it up.
Wow. All you need to do are find those answers for yourself. The point of videos like this are to lightly inform and inspire you to know more. There are plenty of documentaries that explain in depth but you need to find them for yourself.
Google it boomer
I like how all the comments are mad at you for expecting a news channel to inform you about its topic.
This was really interesting, thanks.
I always thought that American products sometimes tend to look so artificial it would make me NOT consume it so the fact that American people are taught by sheer normalcy that these artificial dyes makes it more appealing is really concerning
A lot of important information was left out of this one. But to me the most glaring one is that the study used to link Red 3 to "behavioral issues" didn't even point to Red 3 specifically. It assessed all dyes. At most they summarized one study in rodents that focused on Red 3, but they also summarized other studies in rodents for other dyes. Their conclusions also speak of all dyes as a whole, never singling Red 3 out. And that is key information, because if their concern truly was "behavioral issues in children" then all dyes should be suspect, not just Red 3.
It is also glaring that they left out critical information regarding the study linking Red 3 to thyroid cancer, as pointed out by plenty of other people.
Overall I don't feel there was enough due diligence with this report.
Did we watch the same video? I definitely remember them mentioning the link to Thyroid Cancer, and while it may have not been clearly stated, it was at least clear to me at a few points in the video that they had moved on from singling out Red 3 and were then making the implication you are suggesting, which is that it's all dyes that are the problem. The guy from the advocacy group in particular seemed to have made that argument when mentioning how none of the dyes do anything useful for the food at all, they are only used for aesthetics.
@moogle68 they mentioned the link to thyroid cancer. They also recognized that the competent authorities say the evidence for it isn't conclusive. They don't go into why. And the why in this case is very important, because it has to do with the dosis employed in the study. The laboratory animals were subject to dosis of Red 3 that are just absurdly unrealistic. And the problem is that any molecule can lead to adverse effects if given in extreme dosis, and that includes increasing cancer risk. For example a hypervitaminosis of B12 has been associated with an increased risk of certain cancers.
The case against Red 3, as presented in the report, hinges upon it being linked to thyroid cancer and behavioral issues. But as explained above, the link to thyroid cancer is dubious from a scientific point of view, and the link to behavioral issues was not exclusive to Red 3. And I would also like to add that "behavioral issues" is too ambiguous a term which can also lead to misinterpretation. The study specifically found that it has a negative effect in children diagnosed with ADHD because it exacerbates their symptoms, and they also add that the effect was limited to children with ADHD, with no appreciable effect in children without ADHD.
All of those details are important. And none were part of the report. So I stand by my initial assessment that they did a poor job in explaining the topic thoroughly.
0:17 can someone explain to me why all Vox producers sound the same ?
Cancer has now become the leading cause of death in some countries, like Canada and the second cause of death in the United States. It is wiser to electively wake up to this startling statistic now rather than having ones wake up call being in the form of an unexpected diagnosis, subsequent last minute chemotherapy sessions and an untimely funeral.
For me as a kid it was Yellow 5 that made me SUPER hyper. This was to a point that when my mom cut me off of it on a weekend and sent a note to school monday asking my kindergarten teacher to let her know how I was acting, the teacher thought that my mom put me on medication. 😆
FYI, Health Canada distinguishes Red Dye No. 3 from “pigment red 3,” which is not permitted in food or cosmetics in Canada. This suggests that Red 3 used in food products is not the same as the banned pigment red 3 used in cosmetics.
I haven't looked up the Canadian regulations, but Pigment Red 3 (Toluidine red) and Red 3 (Erythrosine) are indeed very different compounds.
7:04 "these food dyes are not necessary. They exist purely as a marketing tool for the food industry"
Lots of studies have shown that colours influence how our brains perceive taste. Unless you consider taste as a marketing tool, your statement in therefore false. (that doesn't make it right to use dangerous dyes, anyway)
So in addition for marketing tool they are even linked to quality, great. Implying that if you need color to enhance the perception, that the original preception might not be great. I might have very strage tastes, but the terible looking dishes are usually very good.
Apparently people wouldn't buy ham if it wasn't pink, even though the sodium nitrite used to do it causes cancer.
I think by "these food dyes", they're referring to the synthetic ones, not to natural food dyes. Yes, colors influence how we perceive taste. However, it's not like these processed foods would all end up being grey or a similar off-putting color.
@@redbloodedbutterfly Maybe. But if their concern is the dyes being natural or not, then they're also wrong. In the matter of safety, what counts is the process to ensure it, not the origin of the component. You can have dangerous natural dyes and harmless synthetic ones. Processed food is not inherently bad, it's bad because we put things in it that were not thoroughly tested or that we know are harmful but but allowed by authorities due to lobbying (or a lack of means to control it, depending on the country).
Though, the origin of an ingredient is important for something else and it's at least ecology. Like... asking if bringing one from the other side of the globe just to make a food last 10% longer or appear redder is worth it. (spoiler: no)
The easy way to go about this is to ban all Azo dyes, like red #40, yellow #6, yellow #5, blue #1. They've been to some degree linked to causing allergic responses, hyperactivity and ADHD in children.
It's better to be on the safe side, as many have said there are a lot of dyes coming straight from vegetables etc. that we know for a fact is safe. Or, to at least not have them in products specifically marketed towards kids.
So these food dyes cause that, but if someone were to say a vaccine caused it, that's totally a tin-foil hat moment, right? Might want to start wearing one yourself!
There are also links to auto inflammatory responses.
Great Production.
What can we eat nowadays without getting cancer? Or getting heavily sick in the years to come from?
Grass fed organic beef basically ✨
@@soulfire. Beef ain't healthy generally, organic or grass fed doesn't matter that much (for nutrition, animal welfare is another question ofc), it's still red meat.
things don't give you cancer. they just increase your risk. LETS GO GAMBLING!
@@soulfire.But then red meat is bad for you, along with growth hormones and antibiotics they give the cows
It's tough considering glyphosate-based pesticides they still use in most countries, but generally any food that has anti-inflammatory properties is good against developing cancer.
Surprisingly, Canada also seems to allow it, actually in both food and cosmetics
Idk if i actually have adhd or not. I definitely have symptoms. I got diagnosed at 16 and I feel like red dye makes me more hyper but could be a placebo effect. I remember being more talkative and having more energy after eating red sweet and sour sauce as a kid but who knows
I’d love if Vox could do a deep dive in Ca prop 65! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE 🙏🏼
An important detail that shouldn't be left out:
In the study where they tested red 3 on rats and found a link between it and thyroid cancer. They gave the rats around 2500mg per kilogram of weight daily of the dye which would be something like 200 grams (0.44 pounds) per day for an average north American. The amount they gave them is ridiculously large and as we know the dose makes the poison... Soooo yeah...
there has yet to be a study that uses a commonly digested amount with any artificial dye or sweetener that leads to cancer or other negative effects.
Ahhh you're using logic. Synthetic err that means bad
Generally the LD50 for lab rats is surprisingly equivalent to humans regardless of size. Rats are incredibly resistant to all sorts of things. The only poison they're less resistant than humans is alcohol. What the difference is when it comes to carcinogens I can't say for sure, but you generally can't scale these things one to one.
Infuriating. Thanks to Vox for covering this.
Company interests > public interests
Who funds politicians' campaigns?
It's certainly not the bulk of the American public, they're barely making enough to scrape by!
oh wow, just today, I had all of my middle school students respond to the California school ban on that red dye 😮
Glad i live in the EU with all its Rules & Regulations!
Couldn't agree more!
The EU does not ban artificial dyes, but they do need to be marked on the package.
The only major economy that bans them is Japan.
@@mjs3188 just compare the list of allowed additives between usa & eu! the amount of random chemistry in their food is truly disturbing!
Can we just stop coloring food?
no
why? we can make it safe now
companies know that colours are more appetizing. a lot of foods that come out of factories are really bad colours- greys, browns, pinks. Butter has to be dyed yellow, otherwise it's a stick of grey.
edit: companies shouldn't be able to sell ultra-processed food anyway, but oh well
No
We can colour food with edible and safe materials, RED 3 has been banned in EU in 1994 but US is just a little bit behind.... a little bit.
Red m&m’s were banned because of the dye issues hence “remember red m&m’s?” In the 1970’s.
I just realized 99% of red candy specifically clear gummies have the exact same colour just a little less or more saturated
Without red 3
All red candy has to have natural colour
My ADHDer goes absolutely bonkers with red dyes. I had to go through all his Halloween candy and take out about a third of it. His favorite cereal is Froot Loops, and the only version I can find without red dye is the Aldi store brand.
no correlation between food dye and adhd symptoms, read the literature
also no way to be sure that it’s actually the dye that is exacerbating your ADHD symptoms
Isn’t Red 40 the one that’s clinically linked to colon cancer in males and yet it’s still in all our foods? Shouldn’t yall talk about that one?
Why should we expect the government to protect us from the corporations that fill their campaign coffers? This Country has been run by campaign contributors for many many years, and now that a handful of corporations own almost everything, they decide how this country is run. Remember, it's all for the shareholders.
Fantastic video!
YES!!! Make America healthy again. 🇺🇸
Do an episode on fragrance and parfum please!
THANK YOU!
I'm allergic to Red 40, which is banned in many countries.
Thank you for sharing this
Simple answer : regulatory capture.
Secondary answer : the regulatory framework in the U.S. (unlike Europe) with few exceptions is NOT based on the "precautionary principle". I.e. In Europe, a new substance must be shown to be safe before it is used, while in the U.S. a new substance is presumed safe until it is proven to be dangerous.
I heard about this a couple weeks ago while watching something else so I went and checked my American candy to see if it was present. It wasn't. I checked my American pop tarts and it wasn't there. So glad I live in Australia because my country makes sure the food I eat is safe.
Why red 3 is still in your candy.... CEO grabs crouch. AMERICA!! Thats why!
Forgive me, but after learning about Cyclamate, I am inherently skeptical of any references to rats getting cancer in "studies."
all artificial food dyes should be banned from being added to food unless they are proven to be 99.99% safe
This is why Im in cali
My sister had tons of behavioral issues from synthetic dyes.
It's such a shame that the marketing is somehow powerful enough to necessitate putting the coloring in these foods. Are consumers really so superficial that they care so much about colors? This kinda goes in line with the cheese video where making a cheese more yellow made it look better for consumers.
We are neglecting this argument from a psychology angle. I think even if a food dye is safe to consume, it doesn't necessarily mean it's okay for your psychology. If your brain associates wonderful colors (I think of mangos, cooked shellfish, and berries) with nutrient dense food it is probably a lot healthier than associating these colors with sugar water and candy which don't provide essential nutrients or provide other benefits like many colorful carotenoids/antioxidants. I think its a huge part of our evolution to associate colors with nutrients and hacking this with synthetic colors is a much bigger problem than the chemical properties of the drug (poisoning and toxicity is a lot more cut and dry than psychology). Not having a good color-to-nutrient feedback cycle is probably a good part of why we are so obese I posit.
Great video
Brach's makes me disappointed, they make a nostalgic childhood candy, that could change it's taste so it's not so headacheingly sweet, and change how it looks so it doesn't put people at risk, but no, they would rather not
to quote the cereal therapy sketch form dropout/collegehumor; "then it sounds like you have to look out for number 1"
Mice were fed a diet where Erythosine (Red 3) was 4% of their diet. That’s a very high dose.
Other studies say it’s not genotoxic.
Does it actually seem weird that scientists say the mice studies may not be relevant?
I get that this guy is doing his job but when he says something like (paraphrasing)”why does the FDA not ban foods that we know are unsafe?”
It seems he is overstating it by quite a bit.
(At least according to reading a few online resources)
What about the other colors? I swear I am attracted to blue flavored things, like FD&C Blue, or Blue Lake No. 1. Any insight or anyone else have this experience?
this is why i don’t trust the FDA.
I'm sure there is a blue and red dye you use in your foods that we banned in the EU around the 2000s. Sunny D and blue smarties were taken off the market here for about a year and came back with a new formula. This is what I cant understand, big brands already make the EU versions so why not switch on their own. The new formula is already made.
De Ja Vu, a life time ago I remember red dye #2 being banned for some reason. So NEXT time will it be #4?
What about this building "contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm," and the complacency that comes from ignoring it?
Excellent video!! I truly don't understand why the clear and obvious conflicts of interest that happen Every Day at the FDA are allowed to continue to happen. We should have the same effective food safety agency that the EU has!! It's infuriating, & to watch Congress do nothing at all is even more infuriating!!!😡😡😡
Hmm strange that the head of the FDA is a political appointee not an official who can be voted out. Also a massive coincidence that ALL presidents of BOTH parties assign a former lobbyist to the position.
The Delaney Clause was nullified in 1996 with the food quality protection act; so although it was lazy for the FDA, they technically weren’t breaking the law ://
Animal research is being found not to be so relevant to humans. One example, I believe I recall, was penicillin which was found to have a negative impact on animals but not on humans.
Let's go RFK the only mainstream person that is talking about this
Only 236 more chemicals to go!
Orange 1: That's what's wrong with Donald...
Isnt it the color coming from a bug called cochineal? Is it the red dye from this bug causes the side effects?
Please hide this before my mum sees and stops me from trick or treating. Again
big pharma let them use
Throughout this video I heard "is linked to" meaning that one thing happened, and then another thing happened some time later after that. What it does NOT mean is that the first thing CAUSED the second thing. I agree that the FDA needs to get off its duff and find the causation, if it exists. We should not, however, assume that substance X is bad just because of something that happened hours or days or weeks later to a person who consumed it. If we assume that correlation is causation, then we should also assume that a crowing rooster can make the sun rise (100% correlation).
I completely disagree with the last part saying that it does nothing expect a marketing tool. There have been numerous studys showing that color is also associated with taste. Though i would 100% give up the red color if it meant the a safer food.
We should have Red Five standing by
Proud to be CALIFORNIAN 🐻
It isn’t, and i‘m glad that’s the case.
Colorful food and candy is fun. The fact companies have poisoned joy is itself an injustice.
what about red 40, blue 1, yellow 5 and yellow 6?
That's pure knowledge
"You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally received and practiced on." -- Benjamin Franklin
I am not impartial to candy corn and besides, it's the best source for your daily dose of high-fructose corn syrup.
Before I watch the video: is it money? I bet it’s money.
FDA sitting on its heels reeks of lobbying, but so does research that focuses on "behavior problems in children".
If there were any problems would it happen only to children and to their behaviors?
The conclusion may be the same "Don't use Red 3", but how we get there should be somewhat important, especially as a news organization.
Check in from the future. Red 3 is now being considered for a possible ban. Thank you Voxxx 😂😂😅
Lobbying.
Can we ban red 3 and candy corn?
Make America Healthy Again!
Why is Red 3 still around?
Corruption.
so Red 3 has been around since the 1950s, but the behavioral problems are only being noticed now? Has anything else changed?
I have always loved candy corn! ALwAYS! and the pumpkin candies too! 🤣🍬🧡🤍💛🎃
I've stopped eating packaged foods for years now. I prepare almost everything I eat.
I'm livid that I've been (unwittingly) poisoned for the first 30 years of my life.
this is so scary
Great. Now do vegetable carbon (black dye E153), which is permitted in the EU & UK but banned in the USA because it's a suspected carcinogen.