8 ms·

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

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.
cogman10 2y ago
> only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I think it's valid to also apply heavy scrutiny on new chemicals being added to the food chain. The default being to not allow it if it's not proven safe. Red dye 3 probably shouldn't have been added to the food supply chain with that criteria but since it's already been there for decades with no strong link to negative outcomes there's little reason to ban it now.
- shpongled 2y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but we don't have heavy scrutiny on the existing and natural chemicals that are in the food chain from all of the plants that we eat.
  - echelon 2y ago
    You could build a heuristic risk score against each molecule: - What functional groups does it have? - How many functional groups does it have? - How much electron delocalization does it have? - How much of that electron delocalization is PAHs? - Does the molecule participate in redox reactions? Etc. Basically check to see which molecules can generate free radicals, strip DNA, convert to dangerous metabolites, etc.
    - shpongled 2y ago
      Once you have that trained, you'll be able to publish it and dramatically improve the current SoTA! I wish it was as easy as this - while there are known toxicophores/no-go functional groups in medchem, there is going to be a big dearth of data on non-acute (e.g. not hERG, hepatotoxicity, etc) toxicity, which is really what the question is here: what are the marginal risks/rewards from eating existing food X (since we know it's probably not acutely toxic).
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      It's call QSAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_structure%E2%80%93activity_relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_structure%E2%80%9... They may use a hundred of properties to guess the effect of the molecule.
barbazoo 2y ago
> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Because we're talking about food I would actually like to see the opposite. Provide peer reviewed, gold standard studies showing that what you want to put in food is in fact safe.
- timr 2y ago
  There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Proving something safe is logically equivalent to proving that it is not unsafe, which is the same thing as proving a negative, which cannot be done. I cannot prove there is not a teapot circling Mars, and I cannot prove that even the most inert ingredient, at some dose, will not harm you. Anyone who has lived in California knows this absurdity more intuitively than most people, because California's stupid laws adopt the logic you are proposing, and basically everything in daily life is labeled as cancer-causing.
  - tw04 2y ago
    >There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Really? You have some studies linking wheat and whole grains to cancer? And I don't mean wheat crops sprayed with glyphosate, just straight up wheat? Raspberries? Strawberries? The reality is, very little of the actual natural food in our food chain is directly linked to cancer. All the additives we pile on top, on the other hand, are. I would argue if we can't show a direct benefit to the consumer, it shouldn't be in the food chain. So, what is the direct benefit to a human consuming red-5? "It looks better on store shelves" isn't a direct benefit. A shelf stabilizer? Sure, plenty of instances that makes a lot of sense. Food coloring that happens to be cheaper than natural alternatives? Just... no.
    - whodev 2y ago
dehrmann 2y ago
> Just ask the state of California I've see the labels at Starbucks, by the chocolate at the grocery store, and by the balsamic vinegar.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
I'm not really pro-bureaucrat, but perhaps the standard for food should be slightly different. Just maybe, (novel) food (additives/preservatives/ingredients) should first be proven safe, rather than waiting until they're proven unsafe to prohibit them. It's not as if this was a substance humans regularly ingested for centuries and people are only now wigging out... look at the wikipedia entry for this. The only halogen that's not part of this thing is apparently bromine, the IUPAC name for the chemical's about as long as my comment here.
- stvltvs 2y ago
  Proven safe against what though? I'm a big proponent of food safety regulation, but we have to acknowledge that there's no way to prove something is safe against all possible harms it might do. There will always be a risk in food. The question is how much risk will we tolerate?
jacobgkau 2y ago
> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. How about only put things in food that are contributing to the actual food? It's not just nutritional value, it's absolutely taste and texture as well. But visuals? Surely you can agree the balance of "is it worth it" is different for the color of a fruity loop than for nutritional value and taste. You're correct that the "acceptable" line needs to be somewhere because risk isn't absolute, but that line can be in different places for different purposes. (And you can't just write off all cancer concerns because some of them probably aren't legitimate.)
- esperent 2y ago
  I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes for this because it seems to me a highly valid stance. Why do we allow mostly unchecked, highly processed junk food in our society, only banning items that have a high level of risk of being poisonous, if at all? Especially since the main target of a lot of it is children. Shouldn't we take the opposite approach? Make it very hard to use highly processed unnatural products, to the point where it's cheaper and easier for companies to fall back on less processed "clean label" ingredients. I work in (well, adjacent to) the F&B sector and I can tell you that every large company knows exactly what clean food means, why it's healthier, and where to source the ingredients, and that they have equivalent food products using these either already on shelves, or waiting to be produced if there's a shift in consumer desires. The reason that they don't already use them - the reason you mostly only see advertising for processed foods - is because the more highly processed a food is, the higher the profit margins for companies. I've seen it stated as a rule that every level of processing gives a 2x profit margin. So if you can process an item 3 times, you'll 6x your profit margins (obviously a rule of thumb rather than law).
threeseed 2y ago
> The problem with that premise is that almost every substance has a remote chance of causing cancer in some way or another. What is the scientific basis of this claim ? It's pretty extraordinary that every single thing we eat is carcinogenic.
- esperent 2y ago
  It's a strawman argument often brought up to argue against banning potentially cancer causing foods. It's also not true, since many foods - most vegetables, for example, or many types of fiber - do the complete opposite, and reduce your risk of cancer.
- thereisnospork 2y ago
  It's not extraordinary to state that every single thing we eat[0] can have a study designed around it to show that it might cause cancer -- that is how studies and chemicals (things we eat) work. [0]Except water, maybe. I'd bet if you shoved enough water into a rat at minimum you could observe an increase in tumor growth rate though.
  - fingerlocks 2y ago
    Sorry, IARC already labeled hot water a “possible carcinogen” a decade ago [0]. That puts water into the same risk category as RoundUp [0] https://www.science.org/content/article/panel-s-advice-cancer-risk-hot-drinks-hard-swallow https://www.science.org/content/article/panel-s-advice-cance...
    - unparagoned 2y ago
      But isn’t it true. As in it’s not the chemicals in tea that causes throat cancer but the hot water. This provides useful insight in that you should cool down tea/coffee before drinking
sabareesh 2y ago
I would rather go other direction. When introducing new chemical or additive it has to be proven that is not harmful to humans before using it
BeetleB 2y ago
You didn't address the part that it adds nothing useful to the food other than color.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Color is important for appeal and flavor. Otherwise we would never color food.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  That's an argument against all food dyes including natural ones. Given color improves the enjoyment of food, I'd argue it is useful though.
  - pants2 2y ago
    So let's ban all artificial food dyes. Natural ones work fine. Artificial dyes lead to a race of food manufacturers adding more dye to make their junk food products more appealing.
- throwaway290 2y ago
  "Presentation of food" is not "nothing useful". People who see basically eat with eyes. Like plate/food ratio can make you overeat. Or some food can be totally fine, but if it is just made to look bad for example rotten/expired it can be vomit inducing. Just like if someone says you just ate something bad, if you think what you eat is harmful the body will react If there is no food coloring at all would we eat better? I bet yes. But we can't get there now. It will not pass any vote
ccppurcell 2y ago
No you would only have to ban things with no nutritional benefit. The comment you replied to specified the case in question: it only lends the food a color.
theshrike79 2y ago
In my experience if something is even slightly enjoyable it has a chance of causing cancer.
stuaxo 2y ago
Proof can take a while to get together. I prefer the EUs precautionary principle that enables action to be taken when there is uncertainty over something.
- throw10920 2y ago
  Well, I guess you should start by banning all fruits and vegetables, because there's evidence that they contain toxins and carcinogens, and we're not sure if they're "safe"[1]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/
  - porridgeraisin 2y ago
    That is not how precautions work. If unsure, you ban the mostly unnecessary things. "Hmm, there is an unknown risk with it, do I really need this unhealthy candy" no "Do i really need this vegetable" yes For an analogy, if your neighborhood is unsafe, you don't stop going to school altogether, you probably just won't go out for a night stroll. This kind of absolute logical statement is very stupid. Also, consider that when faced with unsure studies, the fact that fruits and vegetables are part of healthy human diet for centuries longer than a dye has been, is a major factor.
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > That is not how precautions work. If unsure, you ban the mostly unnecessary things. Yes - which includes vegetables. Humans can generally survive indefinitely on an all-meat diet. > "Do i really need this vegetable" yes No. So, your general statement is correct, but you missed the basic fact that vegetables also fall into the category of "mostly unnecessary" things - so, my point stands.
      - porridgeraisin 2y ago
        You're just being obtuse now. Surely you understand the dietary difference between a vegetable and a dye that exists purely for aesthetic purposes? If not, there is no point continuing this.
jvans 2y ago
> only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Sounds like a good way to kill a lot of people
numbsafari 2y ago
Anyone can say X is harmful, just not on X…
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the precautionary principle, since i believe it applies here PP Paper : https://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf https://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
lithocarpus 2y ago
I disagree. Actual food, meaning plants, animals, fungus is one thing. Novel chemical substances should IMHO be guilty until proven innocent. I realize there's a grey area between say, a plant, and some chemical isolated from the plant. There is a spectrum of whole fresh plant, dried plant, powdered plant, and then chemically isolated constituent of the plant powder. There are useful distinctions to make along that spectrum. And eating quantities of an extracted chemical from a plant that would be impossible to consume by eating the whole plant is one such useful distinction. (e.g. I could extract cyanide from apple seeds and concentrate it, and kill myself, when there's no way I could eat enough whole apples to kill myself with the cyanide.) But synthetic chemicals not found in nature are entirely outside of that spectrum.

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.

cogman10 2y ago

> only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I think it's valid to also apply heavy scrutiny on new chemicals being added to the food chain. The default being to not allow it if it's not proven safe. Red dye 3 probably shouldn't have been added to the food supply chain with that criteria but since it's already been there for decades with no strong link to negative outcomes there's little reason to ban it now.

shpongled 2y ago
I don't disagree with you, but we don't have heavy scrutiny on the existing and natural chemicals that are in the food chain from all of the plants that we eat.
- echelon 2y ago
  You could build a heuristic risk score against each molecule: - What functional groups does it have? - How many functional groups does it have? - How much electron delocalization does it have? - How much of that electron delocalization is PAHs? - Does the molecule participate in redox reactions? Etc. Basically check to see which molecules can generate free radicals, strip DNA, convert to dangerous metabolites, etc.
  - shpongled 2y ago
    Once you have that trained, you'll be able to publish it and dramatically improve the current SoTA! I wish it was as easy as this - while there are known toxicophores/no-go functional groups in medchem, there is going to be a big dearth of data on non-acute (e.g. not hERG, hepatotoxicity, etc) toxicity, which is really what the question is here: what are the marginal risks/rewards from eating existing food X (since we know it's probably not acutely toxic).
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    It's call QSAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_structure%E2%80%93activity_relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_structure%E2%80%9... They may use a hundred of properties to guess the effect of the molecule.

barbazoo 2y ago

> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Because we're talking about food I would actually like to see the opposite. Provide peer reviewed, gold standard studies showing that what you want to put in food is in fact safe.

timr 2y ago
There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Proving something safe is logically equivalent to proving that it is not unsafe, which is the same thing as proving a negative, which cannot be done. I cannot prove there is not a teapot circling Mars, and I cannot prove that even the most inert ingredient, at some dose, will not harm you. Anyone who has lived in California knows this absurdity more intuitively than most people, because California's stupid laws adopt the logic you are proposing, and basically everything in daily life is labeled as cancer-causing.
- tw04 2y ago
  >There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Really? You have some studies linking wheat and whole grains to cancer? And I don't mean wheat crops sprayed with glyphosate, just straight up wheat? Raspberries? Strawberries? The reality is, very little of the actual natural food in our food chain is directly linked to cancer. All the additives we pile on top, on the other hand, are. I would argue if we can't show a direct benefit to the consumer, it shouldn't be in the food chain. So, what is the direct benefit to a human consuming red-5? "It looks better on store shelves" isn't a direct benefit. A shelf stabilizer? Sure, plenty of instances that makes a lot of sense. Food coloring that happens to be cheaper than natural alternatives? Just... no.
  - whodev 2y ago

dehrmann 2y ago

> Just ask the state of California I've see the labels at Starbucks, by the chocolate at the grocery store, and by the balsamic vinegar.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

I'm not really pro-bureaucrat, but perhaps the standard for food should be slightly different. Just maybe, (novel) food (additives/preservatives/ingredients) should first be proven safe, rather than waiting until they're proven unsafe to prohibit them. It's not as if this was a substance humans regularly ingested for centuries and people are only now wigging out... look at the wikipedia entry for this. The only halogen that's not part of this thing is apparently bromine, the IUPAC name for the chemical's about as long as my comment here.

stvltvs 2y ago
Proven safe against what though? I'm a big proponent of food safety regulation, but we have to acknowledge that there's no way to prove something is safe against all possible harms it might do. There will always be a risk in food. The question is how much risk will we tolerate?

jacobgkau 2y ago

> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. How about only put things in food that are contributing to the actual food? It's not just nutritional value, it's absolutely taste and texture as well. But visuals? Surely you can agree the balance of "is it worth it" is different for the color of a fruity loop than for nutritional value and taste. You're correct that the "acceptable" line needs to be somewhere because risk isn't absolute, but that line can be in different places for different purposes. (And you can't just write off all cancer concerns because some of them probably aren't legitimate.)

esperent 2y ago
I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes for this because it seems to me a highly valid stance. Why do we allow mostly unchecked, highly processed junk food in our society, only banning items that have a high level of risk of being poisonous, if at all? Especially since the main target of a lot of it is children. Shouldn't we take the opposite approach? Make it very hard to use highly processed unnatural products, to the point where it's cheaper and easier for companies to fall back on less processed "clean label" ingredients. I work in (well, adjacent to) the F&B sector and I can tell you that every large company knows exactly what clean food means, why it's healthier, and where to source the ingredients, and that they have equivalent food products using these either already on shelves, or waiting to be produced if there's a shift in consumer desires. The reason that they don't already use them - the reason you mostly only see advertising for processed foods - is because the more highly processed a food is, the higher the profit margins for companies. I've seen it stated as a rule that every level of processing gives a 2x profit margin. So if you can process an item 3 times, you'll 6x your profit margins (obviously a rule of thumb rather than law).

threeseed 2y ago

> The problem with that premise is that almost every substance has a remote chance of causing cancer in some way or another. What is the scientific basis of this claim ? It's pretty extraordinary that every single thing we eat is carcinogenic.

esperent 2y ago
It's a strawman argument often brought up to argue against banning potentially cancer causing foods. It's also not true, since many foods - most vegetables, for example, or many types of fiber - do the complete opposite, and reduce your risk of cancer.
thereisnospork 2y ago
It's not extraordinary to state that every single thing we eat[0] can have a study designed around it to show that it might cause cancer -- that is how studies and chemicals (things we eat) work. [0]Except water, maybe. I'd bet if you shoved enough water into a rat at minimum you could observe an increase in tumor growth rate though.
- fingerlocks 2y ago
  Sorry, IARC already labeled hot water a “possible carcinogen” a decade ago [0]. That puts water into the same risk category as RoundUp [0] https://www.science.org/content/article/panel-s-advice-cancer-risk-hot-drinks-hard-swallow https://www.science.org/content/article/panel-s-advice-cance...
  - unparagoned 2y ago
    But isn’t it true. As in it’s not the chemicals in tea that causes throat cancer but the hot water. This provides useful insight in that you should cool down tea/coffee before drinking

sabareesh 2y ago

I would rather go other direction. When introducing new chemical or additive it has to be proven that is not harmful to humans before using it

BeetleB 2y ago

You didn't address the part that it adds nothing useful to the food other than color.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Color is important for appeal and flavor. Otherwise we would never color food.
Aloisius 2y ago
That's an argument against all food dyes including natural ones. Given color improves the enjoyment of food, I'd argue it is useful though.
- pants2 2y ago
  So let's ban all artificial food dyes. Natural ones work fine. Artificial dyes lead to a race of food manufacturers adding more dye to make their junk food products more appealing.
throwaway290 2y ago
"Presentation of food" is not "nothing useful". People who see basically eat with eyes. Like plate/food ratio can make you overeat. Or some food can be totally fine, but if it is just made to look bad for example rotten/expired it can be vomit inducing. Just like if someone says you just ate something bad, if you think what you eat is harmful the body will react If there is no food coloring at all would we eat better? I bet yes. But we can't get there now. It will not pass any vote

ccppurcell 2y ago

No you would only have to ban things with no nutritional benefit. The comment you replied to specified the case in question: it only lends the food a color.

theshrike79 2y ago

In my experience if something is even slightly enjoyable it has a chance of causing cancer.

stuaxo 2y ago

Proof can take a while to get together. I prefer the EUs precautionary principle that enables action to be taken when there is uncertainty over something.

throw10920 2y ago
Well, I guess you should start by banning all fruits and vegetables, because there's evidence that they contain toxins and carcinogens, and we're not sure if they're "safe"[1]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/
- porridgeraisin 2y ago
  That is not how precautions work. If unsure, you ban the mostly unnecessary things. "Hmm, there is an unknown risk with it, do I really need this unhealthy candy" no "Do i really need this vegetable" yes For an analogy, if your neighborhood is unsafe, you don't stop going to school altogether, you probably just won't go out for a night stroll. This kind of absolute logical statement is very stupid. Also, consider that when faced with unsure studies, the fact that fruits and vegetables are part of healthy human diet for centuries longer than a dye has been, is a major factor.
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > That is not how precautions work. If unsure, you ban the mostly unnecessary things. Yes - which includes vegetables. Humans can generally survive indefinitely on an all-meat diet. > "Do i really need this vegetable" yes No. So, your general statement is correct, but you missed the basic fact that vegetables also fall into the category of "mostly unnecessary" things - so, my point stands.
    - porridgeraisin 2y ago
      You're just being obtuse now. Surely you understand the dietary difference between a vegetable and a dye that exists purely for aesthetic purposes? If not, there is no point continuing this.

jvans 2y ago

> only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Sounds like a good way to kill a lot of people

numbsafari 2y ago

Anyone can say X is harmful, just not on X…

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the precautionary principle, since i believe it applies here PP Paper : https://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf https://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

lithocarpus 2y ago

I disagree. Actual food, meaning plants, animals, fungus is one thing. Novel chemical substances should IMHO be guilty until proven innocent. I realize there's a grey area between say, a plant, and some chemical isolated from the plant. There is a spectrum of whole fresh plant, dried plant, powdered plant, and then chemically isolated constituent of the plant powder. There are useful distinctions to make along that spectrum. And eating quantities of an extracted chemical from a plant that would be impossible to consume by eating the whole plant is one such useful distinction. (e.g. I could extract cyanide from apple seeds and concentrate it, and kill myself, when there's no way I could eat enough whole apples to kill myself with the cyanide.) But synthetic chemicals not found in nature are entirely outside of that spectrum.