9 ms·

Serious question: If there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing color, why risk it? Wh

by tw04 2y ago

Serious question: If there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing color, why risk it? What is the benefit?

selykg 2y ago
I don't think anyone really cares or thinks there's some benefit. The problem is (I think) that this leads to some people believing that the dye causes cancer, when there's been no direct link in humans.
dmonitor 2y ago
I'm surprised they're banning Red 3 instead of Red 40. Red 40 is a very common allergen.
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  Yes one member of my family would be thrilled if Red 40 was banned. They don't have an anaphylactic reaction, they "just" barf it back up shortly.
will4274 2y ago
We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. At the end of the day, the safest thing (in terms of avoiding cancer) is probably to plant some potatoes in your backyard and eat them unspiced and unbuttered for the rest of your life. Most of us prefer food that is a bit more appealing than that, however. Appealing in all aspects - taste, texture, and appearance.
- tw04 2y ago
  >We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. I mean, we absolutely do that already. There's plenty of folks on a low sodium diet because while the salt tastes great, it's bad for them. In this case we aren't talking about eliminating the color red entirely, we're arguing about a slightly different color. You can get red from a strawberry, raspberry, cherry skin, etc. which will work just as well. It just won't be the neon-red that red-5 produces.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Yup, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of dyes one could use to get red that are completely harmless. Although they may be more expensive, I have no clue.
- B56b 2y ago
  Nope, eating nothing but potatoes for the rest of your life is a fantastic way to ensure that you end up with severe macro/micronutrient deficiencies, which will be a very effective way of generating disease, including cancer.
  - will4274 2y ago
    > Hyperbole. > 1. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton. > 2. A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect. > 3. Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device. From DuckDuckGo, quoting Wordnik, quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Other than bakery items, what foods do you regularly eat that depend on having a specific color? I don't see how that's anything other than a marketing tool to make them stand out on store shelves. When you order something in a restaurant, you typically don't even know what their version will look like until it gets to your table. I've never, not once, added dyes to home cooking outside of cake icings and things like that. There've been ridiculous attempts to get rid of perfectly innocent flavor enhancers before, like the fight against MSG. Take out MSG, and food tastes less good. But take out a borderline red dye, and what's the worst that happens? Factories have to sell soda that's slightly less pretty in the bottle?
  - 1970-01-01 2y ago
    Cheese Tuna Pickles Oranges (apples as well, but I can't find an old article) Wasabi Apricots Ginger Salmon https://www.treehugger.com/foods-youd-never-guess-were-artificially-colored-4863947 https://www.treehugger.com/foods-youd-never-guess-were-artif...
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      Those are dyed, but they don't depend on the dye for nutrition or taste. Wasabi isn't less delicious if it's a lighter or different hue.
      - 1970-01-01 2y ago
        The saying goes you eat with your eyes. These things depend on dye as they rot on the shelf otherwise. A paper on it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938412002703 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319...
        deathanatos 2y ago
        I mean … the pickled ginger served by my local Japanese sushi place is … well, the color of ginger (same shade as like a ginger beer) and it tastes fine to me?
- myvoiceismypass 2y ago
  For fun, you could grow your own seasoning (besides herbs, easy too) for those potatoes. I recently learned about the plant Salicornia - you can dehydrate them and grind them to make a green salt. I'm going to try to grow some this year.
bityard 2y ago
The problem with that premise is that almost every substance has a remote chance of causing cancer in some way or another. Just ask the state of California. So you would have to ban everything if that is really your stance. The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Otherwise, anyone can simply say X is harmful and pass regulations to get their pet bogeyman pulled off the market, and that is basically what is happening here.
- ninininino 2y ago
  No, you assign a risk score as well as a cost score to all the industrial inputs that you can use. In this case, there are readily available red food dyes (eg cochineal from industrially farmed insects) that have much lower risk scores (as they are from plant and animal sources) and not significantly different cost scores. You also need to ask, what is the cost of not having this substance? In this case, the cost would be - you have food that isn't red. Is that a substantial problem for society? To treat these as irrelevant and boil it down to "prove it is harmful or shut up" is needlessly reductive.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    Have those other been proven safe? Is it possible they too cause cancer? I'd like to point out that eating charred meat has a clear link with colon cancer, so we can't simply appeal to nature for safety.
  - parineum 2y ago
    > that have much lower risk scores (as they are from plant and animal sources) This is a fallacy. If anything, there's more reason to expect that a substance evolved to serve a biological function (that happens to be red) would have biological effects in humans than a substance developed specifically to be red and be biologically inert.
    - ninininino 2y ago
      No, the bias towards natural isn't because of appeal to nature, it's because we co-evolved and we'd know by now if red insect dye is carcinogenic compared to a new synthetic dye that hasn't had decades of interaction with humans. We have a longer time window of prior experience with the older, natural ingredient. We could be creating something as dangerous as asbestos artificially.
1970-01-01 2y ago
I suppose it boils down to freedom of expression. Analog is a type of red plastic does nothing to humans, but can cause cancer if rats eat it. Do we ban it? What if we're actually trying to kill rats in our area?
- galleywest200 2y ago
  Humans do not eat plastic, this argument doesn't make sense.
  - 1970-01-01 2y ago
    Humans constantly consume microplastic. This is a bad faith argument.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      Just because an argument is wrong (and in this case gp is very wrong), does not mean it is in bad faith. Arguing in bad faith requires intent. I see no evidence of intent in gp's message. Ironically, if it didn't then one could say that dismissing arguments as bad faith (without evidence) of such is itself a form of bad faith, meaning your dismissal would be in bad faith. However, I see no evidence that you intended to argue in bad faith.
      - 1970-01-01 2y ago
        I will disagree. Stating an obviously empirically false, easily observed statement immediately does set the table for a bad faith argument IMHO.
        bigstrat2003 2y ago
        It's only in bad faith if the poster knows the statement to be false. You can't prove that they do, therefore it's pretty rude (to say the least) to accuse them of bad faith. It's also not remotely "easily observable" that humans constantly consume microplastic.
cogman10 2y ago
Seems more like a problem with uneven application of bans. Red dye 3 might cause cancer (maybe) but it's admittedly such a weak effect that studies aren't finding a link in humans. Meanwhile, there are carcinogenic things like alcohol which anyone can buy (over 21). Heck, we can't even mandate that alcohol must contain B12, which would absolutely save lives and prevent some of the serious injuries of alcoholism. But we can ban this dye that may or may not in some very small percentage of people cause cancer.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Yeah, B12 AND B1 in alchohol alike. There are lots of people around age 50 who get admitted to social home and have irreversible B1 deficiency, labeled as "alcohol-induced B1 deficiency".
- hattmall 2y ago
  But red dye has little to no value to consumers and there are equally viable alternatives. No one is going to start bootlegging red dye 3 if it is banned. Alcohol has huge value and is basically impossible to ban. What does B12 in alcohol do?
  - cogman10 2y ago
    B1 and B12 it should be. As for what that does [1], wet brain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke_encephalopathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke_encephalopathy If someone you know is an alcoholic, try and get them to take b vitamins.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2y ago
modeless 2y ago
Alcohol causes cancer, should we reenact prohibition? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. Should we ban water? Nothing in this world is truly free of all risk. We have to make judgement calls with every single substance. Yes, coloring food is a legitimate use with real benefits that we need to weigh against the risks. And we also need to consider the very real costs of enforcement and burden of compliance. Bans are an extreme option that does not come without costs for the government and society.
- roboror 2y ago
  Obviously the problem is that Red no3 is so prevalent and completely unregulated. Alcohol is sold separately and ID is needed to purchase and isn't added to children's food. If the dye was only sold separately in bottles this debate wouldn't be happening. The water thing is even more unserious so I'll ignore it.
- interludead 2y ago
  The difference, I think, is that alcohol is a choice. But having a potentially dangerous dye in a pill you're forced to take is not.
  - apwell23 2y ago
    > alcohol is a choice. Thousands of ppl die every year from being other end of DUI. I didn't choose to be on the road with ppl who choose to drink. It was forced on me.
    - interludead 2y ago
      That’s another perspective on alcohol usage
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  This is a silly argument that is often made. Everyone knows alcohol is a toxin. It is regulated. You have to be of certain age to buy it. It isn't normally in things you consume daily as a secondary ingredient in doses that would be harmful. You can taste it if it is. If you cannot taste it, you can recognize the effects from drinking it. The dose makes the poison with any substance, that is a base tenant of toxicology. Not many people are unintentionally poisoning themselves with water. Food and drug regulations save lives. If you want to argue against them, please at least do so in a manner that doesn't rely on absurdist examples.
reverendsteveii 2y ago
Follow-on serious question: who gets to decide what risk is too much and what reward isn't enough for me and my body? Why should that be anyone other than me?
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  Because that's what we tried for a hundred years and its how we ended up with innumerable wildly dangerous products on the market. The amount of research to vet all the products in your daily life would be astronomical and that's even assuming the companies making them are honest about the ingredients. Here's the context of why the FDA was founded: > By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products that had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, mascara that could cause blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law did not get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
- dekhn 2y ago
  A combination of economists, epidemiologists, public health officials, governments, and individuals. Why other than you? Because you have an impact on society. Your actions affect others.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    But this is to do with food I eat. I don't feed it to other people. Here's a better question, then: what health and safety decisions do I get to make on your behalf. What can I dictate to you that you can't do, or have to do? Can I mandate that you have to run 5 miles every day? It will be good for you to do, and it will impact others by increasing your productivity and lowering the cost of your healthcare on society. Is it reasonable that I should be able to use the threat of violence to induce you to exercise? Because that's all that regulation is: it's an outline of behaviors for which the threat of violence is a legitimate response.
colechristensen 2y ago
The studies that show cancer in rats involve the equivalent of you eating like a pound of the substance a day or more when the dosage you’re exposed to is in milligrams for food. Plenty of things you eat would kill you if you ate thousands of times as much per day. Most spices. 100 cups of coffee will likely kill you.

by tw04 2y ago

Serious question: If there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing color, why risk it? What is the benefit?

selykg 2y ago

I don't think anyone really cares or thinks there's some benefit. The problem is (I think) that this leads to some people believing that the dye causes cancer, when there's been no direct link in humans.

dmonitor 2y ago

I'm surprised they're banning Red 3 instead of Red 40. Red 40 is a very common allergen.

BenjiWiebe 2y ago
Yes one member of my family would be thrilled if Red 40 was banned. They don't have an anaphylactic reaction, they "just" barf it back up shortly.

will4274 2y ago

We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. At the end of the day, the safest thing (in terms of avoiding cancer) is probably to plant some potatoes in your backyard and eat them unspiced and unbuttered for the rest of your life. Most of us prefer food that is a bit more appealing than that, however. Appealing in all aspects - taste, texture, and appearance.

tw04 2y ago
>We (humans) don't subsist on some Matrix-like slop that provides all of our nutrients for no pleasure. Eating is a weird combination of necessity and pleasure activity. You could ask: if there's even a slight chance it causes cancer, and it adds nothing to the food other than a slightly more appealing taste, why risk it? You'd ban most spices with this line of reasoning. I mean, we absolutely do that already. There's plenty of folks on a low sodium diet because while the salt tastes great, it's bad for them. In this case we aren't talking about eliminating the color red entirely, we're arguing about a slightly different color. You can get red from a strawberry, raspberry, cherry skin, etc. which will work just as well. It just won't be the neon-red that red-5 produces.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Yup, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of dyes one could use to get red that are completely harmless. Although they may be more expensive, I have no clue.
B56b 2y ago
Nope, eating nothing but potatoes for the rest of your life is a fantastic way to ensure that you end up with severe macro/micronutrient deficiencies, which will be a very effective way of generating disease, including cancer.
- will4274 2y ago
  > Hyperbole. > 1. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton. > 2. A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect. > 3. Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device. From DuckDuckGo, quoting Wordnik, quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
kstrauser 2y ago
Other than bakery items, what foods do you regularly eat that depend on having a specific color? I don't see how that's anything other than a marketing tool to make them stand out on store shelves. When you order something in a restaurant, you typically don't even know what their version will look like until it gets to your table. I've never, not once, added dyes to home cooking outside of cake icings and things like that. There've been ridiculous attempts to get rid of perfectly innocent flavor enhancers before, like the fight against MSG. Take out MSG, and food tastes less good. But take out a borderline red dye, and what's the worst that happens? Factories have to sell soda that's slightly less pretty in the bottle?
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  Cheese Tuna Pickles Oranges (apples as well, but I can't find an old article) Wasabi Apricots Ginger Salmon https://www.treehugger.com/foods-youd-never-guess-were-artificially-colored-4863947 https://www.treehugger.com/foods-youd-never-guess-were-artif...
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    Those are dyed, but they don't depend on the dye for nutrition or taste. Wasabi isn't less delicious if it's a lighter or different hue.
    - 1970-01-01 2y ago
      The saying goes you eat with your eyes. These things depend on dye as they rot on the shelf otherwise. A paper on it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938412002703 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319...
      - deathanatos 2y ago
        I mean … the pickled ginger served by my local Japanese sushi place is … well, the color of ginger (same shade as like a ginger beer) and it tastes fine to me?
myvoiceismypass 2y ago
For fun, you could grow your own seasoning (besides herbs, easy too) for those potatoes. I recently learned about the plant Salicornia - you can dehydrate them and grind them to make a green salt. I'm going to try to grow some this year.

bityard 2y ago

The problem with that premise is that almost every substance has a remote chance of causing cancer in some way or another. Just ask the state of California. So you would have to ban everything if that is really your stance. The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Otherwise, anyone can simply say X is harmful and pass regulations to get their pet bogeyman pulled off the market, and that is basically what is happening here.

ninininino 2y ago
No, you assign a risk score as well as a cost score to all the industrial inputs that you can use. In this case, there are readily available red food dyes (eg cochineal from industrially farmed insects) that have much lower risk scores (as they are from plant and animal sources) and not significantly different cost scores. You also need to ask, what is the cost of not having this substance? In this case, the cost would be - you have food that isn't red. Is that a substantial problem for society? To treat these as irrelevant and boil it down to "prove it is harmful or shut up" is needlessly reductive.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Have those other been proven safe? Is it possible they too cause cancer? I'd like to point out that eating charred meat has a clear link with colon cancer, so we can't simply appeal to nature for safety.
- parineum 2y ago
  > that have much lower risk scores (as they are from plant and animal sources) This is a fallacy. If anything, there's more reason to expect that a substance evolved to serve a biological function (that happens to be red) would have biological effects in humans than a substance developed specifically to be red and be biologically inert.
  - ninininino 2y ago
    No, the bias towards natural isn't because of appeal to nature, it's because we co-evolved and we'd know by now if red insect dye is carcinogenic compared to a new synthetic dye that hasn't had decades of interaction with humans. We have a longer time window of prior experience with the older, natural ingredient. We could be creating something as dangerous as asbestos artificially.

1970-01-01 2y ago

I suppose it boils down to freedom of expression. Analog is a type of red plastic does nothing to humans, but can cause cancer if rats eat it. Do we ban it? What if we're actually trying to kill rats in our area?

galleywest200 2y ago
Humans do not eat plastic, this argument doesn't make sense.
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  Humans constantly consume microplastic. This is a bad faith argument.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Just because an argument is wrong (and in this case gp is very wrong), does not mean it is in bad faith. Arguing in bad faith requires intent. I see no evidence of intent in gp's message. Ironically, if it didn't then one could say that dismissing arguments as bad faith (without evidence) of such is itself a form of bad faith, meaning your dismissal would be in bad faith. However, I see no evidence that you intended to argue in bad faith.
    - 1970-01-01 2y ago
      I will disagree. Stating an obviously empirically false, easily observed statement immediately does set the table for a bad faith argument IMHO.
      - bigstrat2003 2y ago
        It's only in bad faith if the poster knows the statement to be false. You can't prove that they do, therefore it's pretty rude (to say the least) to accuse them of bad faith. It's also not remotely "easily observable" that humans constantly consume microplastic.

cogman10 2y ago

Seems more like a problem with uneven application of bans. Red dye 3 might cause cancer (maybe) but it's admittedly such a weak effect that studies aren't finding a link in humans. Meanwhile, there are carcinogenic things like alcohol which anyone can buy (over 21). Heck, we can't even mandate that alcohol must contain B12, which would absolutely save lives and prevent some of the serious injuries of alcoholism. But we can ban this dye that may or may not in some very small percentage of people cause cancer.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 2y ago
Yeah, B12 AND B1 in alchohol alike. There are lots of people around age 50 who get admitted to social home and have irreversible B1 deficiency, labeled as "alcohol-induced B1 deficiency".
hattmall 2y ago
But red dye has little to no value to consumers and there are equally viable alternatives. No one is going to start bootlegging red dye 3 if it is banned. Alcohol has huge value and is basically impossible to ban. What does B12 in alcohol do?
- cogman10 2y ago
  B1 and B12 it should be. As for what that does [1], wet brain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke_encephalopathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke_encephalopathy If someone you know is an alcoholic, try and get them to take b vitamins.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 2y ago

modeless 2y ago

Alcohol causes cancer, should we reenact prohibition? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. Should we ban water? Nothing in this world is truly free of all risk. We have to make judgement calls with every single substance. Yes, coloring food is a legitimate use with real benefits that we need to weigh against the risks. And we also need to consider the very real costs of enforcement and burden of compliance. Bans are an extreme option that does not come without costs for the government and society.

roboror 2y ago
Obviously the problem is that Red no3 is so prevalent and completely unregulated. Alcohol is sold separately and ID is needed to purchase and isn't added to children's food. If the dye was only sold separately in bottles this debate wouldn't be happening. The water thing is even more unserious so I'll ignore it.
interludead 2y ago
The difference, I think, is that alcohol is a choice. But having a potentially dangerous dye in a pill you're forced to take is not.
- apwell23 2y ago
  > alcohol is a choice. Thousands of ppl die every year from being other end of DUI. I didn't choose to be on the road with ppl who choose to drink. It was forced on me.
  - interludead 2y ago
    That’s another perspective on alcohol usage
someothherguyy 2y ago
This is a silly argument that is often made. Everyone knows alcohol is a toxin. It is regulated. You have to be of certain age to buy it. It isn't normally in things you consume daily as a secondary ingredient in doses that would be harmful. You can taste it if it is. If you cannot taste it, you can recognize the effects from drinking it. The dose makes the poison with any substance, that is a base tenant of toxicology. Not many people are unintentionally poisoning themselves with water. Food and drug regulations save lives. If you want to argue against them, please at least do so in a manner that doesn't rely on absurdist examples.

reverendsteveii 2y ago

Follow-on serious question: who gets to decide what risk is too much and what reward isn't enough for me and my body? Why should that be anyone other than me?

enragedcacti 2y ago
Because that's what we tried for a hundred years and its how we ended up with innumerable wildly dangerous products on the market. The amount of research to vet all the products in your daily life would be astronomical and that's even assuming the companies making them are honest about the ingredients. Here's the context of why the FDA was founded: > By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products that had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, mascara that could cause blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law did not get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
dekhn 2y ago
A combination of economists, epidemiologists, public health officials, governments, and individuals. Why other than you? Because you have an impact on society. Your actions affect others.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  But this is to do with food I eat. I don't feed it to other people. Here's a better question, then: what health and safety decisions do I get to make on your behalf. What can I dictate to you that you can't do, or have to do? Can I mandate that you have to run 5 miles every day? It will be good for you to do, and it will impact others by increasing your productivity and lowering the cost of your healthcare on society. Is it reasonable that I should be able to use the threat of violence to induce you to exercise? Because that's all that regulation is: it's an outline of behaviors for which the threat of violence is a legitimate response.

colechristensen 2y ago

The studies that show cancer in rats involve the equivalent of you eating like a pound of the substance a day or more when the dosage you’re exposed to is in milligrams for food. Plenty of things you eat would kill you if you ate thousands of times as much per day. Most spices. 100 cups of coffee will likely kill you.